Back
2018 Supreme(Sikk) 66
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM, GANGTOK
MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, J.
Shri Sancha Bahadur Subba, Son of Late Aitabir Subba – Petitioner
Versus
State of Sikkim, Through the Chief Secretary and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 31 of 2017
Decided On : 30-04-2018
For the Petitioner:Mr. Raghavendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Karma Thinlay, Senior Government Advocate with Mr. S.K. Chettri, Assistant Government Advocate, Mrs. Tshering Choden Bhutia, Advocate, Mr. S.S. Hamal, Advocate with Ms. Sabina Chettri, Ms. Priyanka Chettri and Ms. Saroja Chettri, Advocates
Disclosure of personal information is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act unless there is a larger public interest justifying the disclosure.
Headnote:
Right to Information Act - Quashing of Orders - Sikkim Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1981 - Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner sought quashing of orders under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and a declaration that information submitted by Government Servants under the Sikkim Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1981 is public information and not an exception within Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Petitioner sought information about the date of appointment, retirement, sources of income, and assets of a retired Secretary of the Energy and Power Department, Government of Sikkim.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the information sought by the Petitioner did not establish larger public interest justifying disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Court held that the suspicion of disproportionate assets without prima facie material did not justify disclosure and would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Issues: The issues involved the disclosure of personal information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the Sikkim Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1981, and whether there was a larger public interest justifying the disclosure of such information.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that disclosure of personal information is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act unless there is a larger public interest justifying the disclosure. Mere suspicion without prima facie material does not justify disclosure and would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Final Decision: The Court rejected the prayers and dismissed the Writ Petition.
JUDGMENT :
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1. The Petitioner by filing the instant Writ Petition seeks quashing of the following Orders of different authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005, being;
(a) Order dated 09.03.2017 passed in Appeal No. 54/SIC/2016 (Annexure P-6),
(b) Order dated 10.09.2016 passed in F.A. No. 02/2016 (Annexure P-4) and
(c) Order dated 25.06.2016 in RTI Application I.D. No. 116/GoS/DoP/RTI/2016 dated 14.6.2016 (Annexure P2).
2. The Petitioner also seeks a declaration that the information submitted by the Government Servants/Public Authorities under Rule 19 of the Sikkim Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1981, is public information and not an exception within Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter ‘RTI Act’). That, a direction be issued to the State Public Information Officer (hereinafter ‘sPIO’), Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Training, Government of Sikkim, to supply the information sought by the Petitioner in his Application within the time frame stipulated under the RTI and not later than a month of the order and other directions as deemed proper by this Court.
3. The Petitioner’s case as it unravels is that, he is the Principal Director, Finance and Accounts, presently posted in the Police Department, Government of Sikkim. The Respondent No.5 is a retired Secretary of the Energy and Power Department, Government of Sikkim, having retired in April, 2015. By an Application dated 14.06.2016, submitted under the RTI Act to the SPIO, Department of Personnel, Adm., Reforms & Training, Government of Sikkim, Gangtok, the Petitioner sought the following information pertaining to the Respondent No.5;
(a) Date of Appointment and Date of Retirement of Shri Prem Bahadur Subba.
(b) All sources of income as declared by Shri Prem Bahadur Subba as per Rule 19 of the Sikkim Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1981 and
(c) Declaration of assets and liabilities and all inherited and acquired properties situated within and outside the State of Sikkim as declared by Shri Prem Bahadur Subba, as per Rule 19 of the Sikkim Government Servant (Conduct) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter ‘SGC Conduct Rules 1981’).
4. The Respondent No.2 vide his Order dated 25.6.2016 supplied the information sought at (a) supra but withheld information pertaining to query No. (b) and (c), citing the reason that the Respondent No. 5 being a third-party had declined consent to the supply of such information. Aggrieved thereof, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the First Appellate Authority, Respondent No.3, relying on the Order of the Chief Information Commissioner of India, in the matter of Mr. Jayant G. Joshi vs. Mr. M.B. Patel, (CIC/SG/A/2011/003103/16921) wherein it was, inter alia, held that disclosure of information such as assets of a Public Servant which is routinely collected by the Public Authority and routinely provided by the Public Servant cannot be construed as an invasion on the privacy of an individual. However, by letter dated 24.8.2016 issued by the Respondent No.2, the Petitioner was informed that his First Appeal was disposed of ex-parte on 22.08.2016. In the face of protests by the Petitioner, a re-hearing was directed whereby the Respondent No.3 upheld the Order of the Respondent No.2, reasoning that the Petitioner did not succeed in establishing larger public interest as envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Assailing this Order, an Appeal was preferred before the Respondent No. 4 drawing strength from the decision in State of U.P. vs. Raj Narain, (1975) 4 SCC 428, besides contending that the regular submission of information of assets and liabilities, including sources of income by all government servants including the Petitioner was a requisite under Rule 19 of the Sikkim Government Servant (Conduct) Rules, 1981. The Appellate Authority was also informed that the Petitioner was already pursuing a Complaint/Representation in the matter of corruption against the Respond
