SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1390

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ritu Bahri, Manisha Batra, JJ.
XXXX – Appellant
Versus
State Information Commissioner, Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
LPA No. 145 of 2020
Decided On : 25-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Shobit Phutela, Mr. Ankur Mittal AAG, Haryana, Mr. Saurabh Mago AAG, Mr. Rajesh Bansal

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(j) - Personal information - Appellant, a Dental Surgeon, challenged the order of the State Information Commission directing the release of her personal information under RTI, asserting it served no public interest. The Court upheld the notion that service-related information can be personal and protected from disclosure. (Paras 2, 4, 12, 14)

(B) Privacy Rights - The ruling emphasized the balance between transparency and personal privacy, concluding certain employment-related informations are governed by service rules and should not be disclosed unless a larger public interest is established. (Paras 8, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner-appellant accused a Medical Officer of harassment by filing RTI requests for her personal information. Respondent No.5 sought extensive details about her professional employment to harass and intimidate her post an FIR filed by the appellant. The lower court had previously dismissed her petition challenging the disclosure of certain information under RTI.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that only the date of the appellant's appointment can be disclosed; all other requested information pertains to her personal matters under service rules and must remain confidential.

Issues: The main issues were whether the respondents had a right to the appellant's personal information under the RTI Act and if disclosing such information aligned with public interest.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while employee-related information should be public to an extent to maintain transparency, it does not override an individual's right to privacy unless truly warranted for public interest. A distinction is made between personal service records and information relevant to public duties.

Result: The appeal was allowed as per the court’s decision to limit the information disclosed to the respondent.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's employment details sought through rti. (Para 2 , 4 , 5)
2. respondent's information request evaluated by the commission. (Para 3 , 6 , 12)
3. scope of personal information in rti context. (Para 7 , 10 , 11)
4. arguments about public interest in personal information. (Para 8 , 9)
5. decision regarding disclosure of personal information. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)

Judgment

Ms. Ritu Bahri, J.

This is an intra court appeal, under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against the judgment dated 06.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, vide which the writ petition i.e. CWP-22358-2015, preferred by XXX petitioner (appellant herein) against the order dated 27.07.2015 (Annexure P-6) passed by the State Information Commission, Haryana, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-appellant is employed as a Dental Surgeon at XXXXX. She lodged a criminal case bearing FIR No.24 dated 15.01.2015 at Police Station, Sadar, Karnal, under Sections 376 , 420 IPC against respondent No.4-XXXXX who is also working as a Medical Officer and is posted at XXXXX. In that case, charges were framed against respondent No.4 on 28.04.2015. As per appellant, with an intention to harass, humiliate and tarnish her image, respondent No.4 had been filing false complaints against the appellant, including various applications under the Right to Information Act, seeking her personal information. In continuation of this, XXXXX -respondent No.5 (father of respondent No.4) filed an application under the Right to Information Act, on 02.02.2015, out of vengeance and personal vendetta. The intent and purpose of this harassment is to pressurize the petitioner-appellant to enter into a compromise in the criminal case or to force her to withdraw the said FIR, registered against him. By filing the application dated 02.02.2015 (Annexure P-2) addressed to the Deputy Civil Surgeon-cum- State Public Information Officer, Karnal, respondent No.5 sought information which is absurd, irrelevant and uncalled for, which relates to the personal information of the petitioner-appellant. There is no public interest involved therein.

3. When no information was supplied by the Deputy Civil Surgeon-cum-State Public Information Officer, Karnal-respondent No.2, within the time stipulated, respondent No.5-SXXXXX filed his first appeal, in which third party comments were sought from the present appellant. Written objections were filed by her on 16.03.2015. Thereafter, parties were given personal hearing and order dated 13.04.2015 (Annexure P-5) was passed by the First Appellate Authority-cum-Civil Surgeon, Karnal, dismissing the appeal and rejecting the application filed by respondent No.5 on the ground that the information sought by him (respondent No.5) was related to personal information of the petitioner-appellant and it was filed with an intention to mentally pressurize her. Against the said order, respondent No.5 filed second appeal before the State Information Commission, Haryana, which was decided on 27.07.2015 (Annexure P-6). It was ordered to supply some of the information, as sought for by respondent No.5. Petitioner-appellant challenged the said order by filing CWP No.22358 of 2015, which was dismissed by the learned Single judge of this Court vide impugned order dated 06.03.2019. Hence, the present appeal.

4. The appellant’s main objection was that while passing the order dated 27.07.2015 (Annexure P-6), information which has been ordered to be supplied to respondent No.5 is her personal information and there is no public interest involved to provide the same.

5. As per the facts of the present case, information sought by respondent No.5 in his application dated 02.02.2015 (Annexure P-2) was as under:-

“Kindly supply the certified copy of the following information as under:-

1. Date of her appointment, place of posting during service.

2. Place and period of deputation, working hours, place of headquarter during deputation between 01.07.2014

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top