ORDER

FACTS

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought certified copies of all the documents (Affidavit, Education qualification, Birth Certificate, Resident proof & other related documents) submitted by Shri Inderpal Singh, presently holding the post of Chairperson of Port Blair Municipal Council in the year 2010 & 2015 at the time of contesting in the Ward Council Election in Port Blair.

Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, Dy. Commissioner (SA), vide order dated 11.07.2018, directed the PIO/OIC (Election), to provide the information as requested within 05 days. Further, the FAA, Dy. Commissioner (SA), vide order dated 10.10.2018 observe that the information concerns to third party personal information, hence cannot be provided without NOC. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information. HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. S Muthumalai through AC;

Respondent: Mr. Farhad Ifrad, Dealing Clerk representative of Additional District Magistrate and Mr. Jose K. John, Officer In-charge (Election) through VC;

The Appellant reiterated the background of the case and submitted that the information sought has not been received by him, till date. In its reply, the Respondent, Officer In-charge (Election), submitted that the information sought pertained to third party and accordingly, the information sought was denied, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Appellant contested the above averments of the Respondent and submitted that no formal letter has been received by him regarding the denial of information under particular section of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, the Appellant submitted that this is a matter of larger public interest and therefore, the same should be provided to him.

With regard to disclosure of personal information of the third party, the Commission referred to the recent judgment dated 13.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 10044 OF 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 OF 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, wherein the Hon’ble Court observed as under:

“59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive.”

In Union of India v. R. Jayachandran WP (C) 3406/2012 dated 19.02.2014 the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had held that passport details, copies of birth certificate and copies of records of educational qualification are personal information, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individuals unless there was an overbearing public interest in favour of disclosure.

The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the Respondent in responding to the RTI application within the prescribed