RTI Act allows denial of personal information when no larger public interest justifies disclosure.

ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai seeking following information:-

“Certified copy of KYC documents of Late Mr. Edward Francis Lawrence having agency no. 01104898 (submitted by his wife Mrs. Theresa Jennifer Lawrence, including, inter-alia, Original Nomination during the interception of his policy, Bank Mandate, Certified Doctor's Certificate, Finger Impression & Notarized Affidavit.”

2. The CPIO responded on 29-05-2019. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 15-06-2019 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 20-06-2019. Thereafter, she filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant, Mrs. Victoria Lawrence was represented by Mr. Joseph Lawrence & Ms. Julie B Lawrence through audio conferencing. Mr. Bharati Lalji, CPIO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.

4. The representatives of the appellant stated that the respondent should be directed to provide her the certified copy of KYC documents of Late Mr. Edward Francis Lawrence having agency no. 01104898, including, inter-alia, Original Nomination during the interception of his policy, Bank Mandate, Certified Doctor’s Certificate, Finger Impression & Notarized Affidavit. They alleged that wife of Late Mr. Edward Francis Lawrence had changed her name as the nominee without the consent of the mother Mrs. Victoria Lawrence in July 2018. They submitted that Late Mr. Edward Francis Lawrence had expired on 07-08-2018.

5. The respondent contended that the documents submitted by the wife of Late Mr. Edward Francis Lawrence are held in fiduciary capacity which are also personal in nature and hence, cannot be provided to the appellant as per the exemptions u/ Section 8 (1)(e) r/w Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. He submitted that the appellant was no longer a nominee in the said policy during the lifetime of Late Mr. Edward Francis Lawrence from July 2018 onwards after the change in nominee came into effect.

Decision:

6. Since the appellant was not a nominee in the said policy as on the date of demise of Late Mr. Edward Francis Lawrence, the sought for documents cannot be provided to the appellant Mrs. Victoria Lawrence. Therefore, the exemptions claimed by the CPIO u/ Section 8 (1)(e) r/w Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 are being upheld. It is to be noted that the information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual would fall within the exempted category unless the authority concerned is satisfied that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. Since no larger public interest is involved in the matter, the sought for information cannot be shared with the appellant. In this regard, the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 & Ors. dated 13-11-2019 titled as CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal , wherein, it was observed as follows:-

“59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, p