Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 1274
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, J
Bimalendu Samaddar – Appellant
Versus
Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) – Respondent
CIC/MORLY/A/2023/635748
The right to privacy is a fundamental right; disclosure of information related to vigilance investigations is exempted under RTI Act if it endangers officials' safety.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1)(g) and 10 - Confidentiality in investigations - The appellant sought information regarding a complaint lodged with the PMO, which was denied on grounds of confidentiality and safety of officials involved, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017) - The FAA upheld the CPIO's decision, emphasizing the impracticality of severing identifying information from the requested documents - The CIC found no grounds for intervention and directed the respondent to provide a copy of the written submission to the appellant. (Paras 7-9)
(B) Privacy Rights - The court reaffirmed that the right to privacy is a fundamental right, and disclosure of information related to vigilance investigations could endanger officials' safety. (Paras 7-9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed an RTI application seeking documents related to a PMO grievance, which was denied by the CPIO citing confidentiality under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, leading to a First Appeal that upheld the denial. The appellant later filed a Second Appeal to the CIC.
Findings of Court:
The CIC observed that the response to the RTI application was appropriate and upheld the CPIO's decision, directing the respondent to provide a written submission to the appellant.
Issues: The main issues were whether the information sought could be disclosed under the RTI Act and the applicability of the severability clause.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the confidentiality of officials involved in investigations must be preserved to ensure their safety, referencing the fundamental right to privacy established in K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India.
Result: The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 13.04.2023 seeking the following information:
“I, Bimalendu Samaddar, lodged a grievance to PMO vide no. PMOPG/E/2022/0149299, Dated: 03/06/2022 which was disposed by PED(Vig)/RB on 16/02/2023 with remarks ’The complaint has been examined and no irregularity observed accordingly case is being closed as per directions of Competent authority’ (Copy enclosed). Thereafter being aggravated I lodged the appeal vide no. MORLY/E/A/23/0001009, Dated: 16/02/2023 (Copy enclosed).
The above stated PMOPG is directly connected with my cause of concern. I want to file a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court against the responsible officials for natural justice & doctrine of fairness who finalize the said tender on false credential in the year 2008 and railway willfully didn’t take any punitive action against them though later on punished the default contractor by banning 5 years of business on & from 20/09/2022.
Now being a first party I sought for the information under RTI Act’ 2005 as follow.
Q1. Please furnish the certified copy of complete file noting & all other relevant documents for disposal of PMOPG/E/2022/0149299.”
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 12.05.2023 stating as under:
“The documents sought contains information regarding names of the officials who investigated the complaint, information collected from different sources in confidence for investigation and comments of administrative authorities thereon. The disclosure of this confidential information would endanger the life & physical safety of the officers concerned. Hence, information sought for is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005.”
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.05.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 02.06.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO with the following observations:
“…7. AND WHEREAS, with regard to the contention of the Appellant that Severability clause (section-10) can be applied and information can be provided, it is seen that in this case it is not practical to separate names, designations and notings from the file. Even if names are severed, the identity of the officers will be revealed by the post designation. Further, in a landmark judgment K.S. Puttaswamy and Anr. vs. Union of India ( (2017) 10 SCC 1 ), (Puttaswamy I), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held right to privacy as a fundamental right. Revealing information about persons involved in the vigilance investigation would tantamount to disclosing information about their bona fide duties to a third party which will be against the spirit of this judgment. AND WHEREAS, all the officials who are involved in investigation and decision are third parties to the matter, the vigilance enquiry has been treated as confidential in the Board’s office. As per Section 2 (n) of the RTI Act, ‘third party’ also includes public authority. All officials have carried their vigilance functions in a bona fide manner and all assistance provided by them for vigilance investigation during the course of their duties was done in confidence of the authority. This is further stated in Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act which states that “notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes”. It is therefore important that the confidentiality about the officials involved in the process should be preserved for their safety and security purposes.
8. AND WHEREAS, Further, the CIC, in their judgment No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000757 dated 12.11.2010 have also held that the details of vigilance files cannot be authorized to be disclosed as these amounts to information confidentially held by the public authority and thereby come within the scope of Section 11 (1)
