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
| 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
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner and others
Vijay Dheer vs. State Information Commission, Punjab and others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of personal information under the RTI Act, 2005, and the application of the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act to specif....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that personal information sought under the Right to Information Act must have a relationship to a public activity or interest and its disclosure sh....
Under the RTI Act, personal information related to government employees is exempt from disclosure unless a demonstrable larger public interest exists.
Personal information, including salary details of an employee, is exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act unless a larger public interest is demonstrated.
Requests for personal information must demonstrate public interest; privacy rights protected under RTI Act exemptions.
Personal employee information exempt under RTI Section 8(1)(j) absent public interest; repetitive vague RTI queries constitute misuse, undermining administrative efficiency; right to information not ....
Individual employee service records, salary details, and income tax particulars constitute 'personal information' exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, unless a larger ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.