Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 1974
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Anandi Ramalingam, Commissioner
Prashant Kumar Awasthi – Appellant
Versus
Baroda U.P. Bank – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/RUGBK/A/2024/114754
For the Appellant:
For the Respondents: Mr. TejPal Singh, Mr. Ishtiyar
Personal information of third parties is exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act unless a larger public interest is established.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) - Denial of information regarding complaint and investigation report - Information sought was held to be personal information of third parties and exempt from disclosure - The appellant failed to establish larger public interest. (Paras 2, 7)
(B) Judicial Precedents - Supreme Court judgments cited clarify the nature of personal information and the conditions for disclosure. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought information regarding a complaint filed against him, which the CPIO denied citing commercial confidence and personal information exemptions.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found that the CPIO's denial was based on the correct application of exemptions under the RTI Act.
Issues: Whether the information sought was exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act and the appellant's public interest claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that personal information is protected from unwarranted invasion of privacy and that the appellant failed to demonstrate a larger public interest.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant sought information regarding a complaint. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. cpio denied information citing exemptions. (Para 2 , 6) |
| 3. commission found cpio's denial justified. (Para 7) |
| 4. larger public interest not established. (Para 8) |
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1) Photocopy of the complaint application filed against Prashant Kumar Awasthi on 6 December 2023 by Ms. Garima Singh, working as a clerk in Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank branch, Shivil Kanpur Dehat.
2) Please provide the name, designation and authorized mobile number of the officer appointed for investigation and the investigation report.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.02.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
With reference to your online application BUPGB/R/E/24/00007 dated 10.01.2024 under right to information act, which was received by us through Head Office, we apprise you that the information sought in point number (01) and (02) is related to commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property and personal information of the "other" person. The disclosure of which would include commercial confidence which harms the competitive position of a third-party trust and not related to any wider public interest.
Hence the "Right to Information Act 2005" is not possible to provide information under sections 8(1)(e) and 8 (1)(j).
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.02.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 04.03.2024 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 06.04.2024.
5. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. TejPal Singh CPIO and Mr. Ishtiyar, Law Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant sought a copy of the complaint filed against him by Ms. Garima Singh, working as a clerk in the bank and name, designation and authorised mobile number of the officer appointed for investigation and the investigation report. He stated that the above said information involved details of third-parties, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence, exemption under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act has been sought. He stated that on dismissal of the appellant’s wife from the services, he started filing repetitive complaints in the bank.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has erroneously denied the information citing commercial confidence but under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act.
However, the information sought involved details of third-parties, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and the which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act only. In this regard, the attention of both the parties 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 person
