Personal third-party information exempt under RTI Section 8(1)(j) absent larger public interest.

ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.07.2023 eeking information on the following points:

(i) Your goodself is requested to provide attested photocopies of the records related to the leaves taken by then Principal from KV NO-2, Agra Cantt., Agra from 20- 04-2021 to 20-06-2021 such as- Application for leave/Application. For permission to leave station / document issued to hand over charge to the senior most staff by the then Principal/document in respect of taking charge by the senior most staff/ attendance register of the said period etc.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 24.08.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.08.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 31.08.2023 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 20.10.2023.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Sanjeev Goswami, Administrative Officer, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the reply furnished by the CPIO was not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information, as sought.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought pertained to the Principal KV No. 2, Agra, (third-party), disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act had been sought. Moreover, as per section 11 of the RTI Act, consent of the third party was sought and the third party did not give his consent for sharing of his details.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided appropriate replies to the RTI Applications as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letters dated 24.08.2023. The perusal of the records further reveals that the appellant has sought personal information of a third party, thus, the respondent correctly denied the information under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of “personal information” envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:

“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 retu