The RTI Act protects personal information from disclosure unless a larger public interest is demonstrated, and public authorities are not obligated to provide information requiring inferences or opinions.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(j) - Denial of information sought by Appellant regarding Court of Inquiry proceedings - CPIO denied information citing personal information exemption - FAA upheld CPIO's decision - Commission found no infirmity in denial as information sought was personal and not in larger public interest. (Paras 2, 8, 9)

(B) Scope of RTI Act - The Act does not require disclosure of information that necessitates drawing inferences or assumptions, nor does it obligate public authorities to provide advice or opinions. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The Appellant sought information regarding the conduct of a Court of Inquiry involving a third party, claiming it was necessary for his defense. The CPIO denied the request, stating it pertained to personal information.

Findings of Court:
The Commission upheld the CPIO's denial, emphasizing the protection of personal information under the RTI Act and the lack of larger public interest in the request.

Issues: The main issues were whether the information sought was personal and if the denial was justified under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the information sought was personal and did not serve a larger public interest, thus justifying the denial under the RTI Act.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.09.2022 seeking information as under:

1. “Please provide copy of the entire documentations which reflects the conduct of Court of Inquiry after 14-07-2022 till date 26th September 2022, pertaining to Shri. R. Anurajan SF-04/ FS-3165, one under Rule 14 and another under Rule 16(1)(b) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965.

2. How many hearings were conducted as per the contentions of the aforesaid reference (1) after 14-07-2022. Please provide transparent details with pertinent copies of documentation of proof.

3. Please provide the copy/s of intimation letter delivered to Shri. R. Anurajan SF- 04/FS-3105 pertinent to the Hearings conducted after 14-07-2022to the Hearings duly endorsed by the respective Inquiry Officers at Ordnance Factory Itarsi.

4. If no inquiry/Hearings are conducted at OFI after 14-07-2022 which has reliance with that of the contentions of the letter under reference (1), then why is that Shri. R. Anurajan SF-04/FS- 3105 of Ordnance Factory Itarsi, upon whom my trust rests upon, is not released to be my Defence Assistant to assist me in my Court of Inquiry. Please provide details of what impact or consequences were faced by Ordnance Factory Itarsi, even though it is explicit through the jurisprudences of CCS(CCA) rules 1965, that, if a DGS requests for want of a Defence Assistant, it is mandatory that it should be provided.”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.10.2022 denying the information on points 1- 3 under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and for point 4 it was stated that the information sought is in questionnaire form, hence cannot be provided.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 24.11.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 29.12.2022 stating inter alia as under:

“….since it do not disfame anybody nor against national integrity or interest or security The information supports me to prove my innocence by getting Shri..R.Anurajan SF- 04 /FS-3105-Ordnance Factory Itarsi (OFI) as my Defence Assistant upon whom my trust rests upon and this information accedes me to prove the manipulations and fabrications of both the Managements of Ordnance Factory Itarsi & Cordite Factory Aruvankadu, who try their utmost to victimize me in a departmental inquiry without providing me a Defence Assistant to assist me, who belongs to the same department (ie) Directorate of Ordnance.

It is well assured version from R.Anurajan SF-04/FS-3105- Ordnance Factory Itarsi (OFI) that no inquiries upon him were conducted on the aforesaid tenure (ic) 14-07-2022 to 26- 09-2022 and the Management of Ordnance Factory itarsi has manipulated, misdirected and given a false communication that as inquiries are presently running upon him (R.Anurajan), he will not be provided as my Defence Assistant…”

5. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Girish Pal, DGM & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The Appellant reiterated the information sought for in the RTI Application and explained the factual narrative behind seeking access to the information of R. Anurajan as stated in the grounds of second appeal reproduced above to insist at length that the same cannot be denied to him under the garb of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

7. The Respondent reiterated that the information relates to a Court of Inquiry of a third party and infact at the relevant time, the inquiry proceedings were also underway, for which reason additionally the information sought for by the Appellant could not have been disclosed.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the denial of the information on points 1-3 of the RTI Application under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is bereft of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 4190

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONANANDI RAMALINGAM, JC. J. RAJESH – AppellantVersusOrdnance Factory Board – RespondentCIC/OFBKO/A/2023/602934

The RTI Act protects personal information from disclosure unless a larger public interest is demonstrated, and public authorities are not obligated to provide information requiring inferences or opinions.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, J
C. J. RAJESH – Appellant
Versus
Ordnance Factory Board – Respondent
CIC/OFBKO/A/2023/602934