Personal employee details exempt under RTI Section 8(1)(j) absent larger public interest; RTI not absolute, misuse through vague/repetitive queries for litigation rejected; exercise right judiciously to avoid obstructing governance.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 2(f), 8(1)(j), 19 - Second appeals under RTI Act - Information sought pertaining to personal details of employees including pay fixation, recruitment records, service regularization - Held, such information constitutes personal information of third parties exempt under Section 8(1)(j) unless larger public interest justifies disclosure - No larger public interest shown; queries vague, repetitive, and aimed at pressuring public authority - RTI Act not to be misused for indiscriminate demands unrelated to transparency or accountability - Reiterated Supreme Court observations that RTI is not absolute right and should not obstruct efficient governance or invade privacy without justification. (Paras 8)

(B) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Misuse of RTI - Habitual filing of similar RTI applications and appeals by appellant noted - Directed to exercise right to information in informed and judicious manner - CPIO replies found adequate, providing public domain information where available and denying personal/third-party details appropriately - No intervention warranted.

Facts of the case:
Appellant, a contractual employee, filed multiple RTI applications seeking personal service details of other employees like pay fixation, recruitment records, and court orders. CPIO denied most under Section 8(1)(j) citing personal/third-party information and non-availability. FAA upheld denials noting misuse of RTI. Appellant filed second appeals claiming public interest for court case.

Findings of Court:
Information sought is personal/third-party data exempt under Section 8(1)(j); no larger public interest established. RTI applications vague and repetitive. CPIO replies in consonance with RTI Act.

Issues: Whether personal employee details like pay fixation and service records exempt under Section 8(1)(j); validity of denying repetitive/vague queries; misuse of RTI for litigation support.

Ratio Decidendi: Personal information exempt unless linked to public activity/interest; RTI not absolute, must balance transparency with privacy/efficiency; vague/repetitive queries outside Section 2(f); prior advisories to appellant to use RTI judiciously reiterated.

Result: Second appeals disposed of without intervention.

Information sought:

1. Second Appeal No. : CIC/MOCOP/A/2024/645143

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.06.2024 seeking the following information:

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 29.08.2024 stating as under:

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.09.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 08.10.2024 stated as under:

“

(1) The appellant Shri Shish Pal, a citizen of India and also a contractual employee of the Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, Chandigarh, a training institute of NCCT, has filed this first appeal vide the appeal dated 03.09.2024 under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act 2005 having been aggrieved of the reply/response of the CPIO, NCCT letter dated 29/08/2024 with regards to his RTI application dated 27- 06-2024.

(2) The facts in the matter have been examined from the records. It has been found that the appellant had earlier vide his first appeal dated 12.08.2024 to the undersigned being the First Appellant Authority under Section 19 of RTI Act stating his grievance about the non- receipt of reply from the CPIO as his RTI application dated 27.06.2024. While disposing off the said first appeal, the CPIO was directed to furnish information as it was noticed that the RTI application was not received by the CPIO. Nevertheless, in compliance with that decision, the CPIO has furnished reply/information vide letter No. 11- 1(2)/2022-Pers/287 dated 29.08.2024 to the appellant. Therefore, his allegation of deliberate delay in reply to his application has been found to be devoid of merit.

(3) It has been observed that although the first point of query does not pertain to the CPIO, but to the Registrar of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, yet the CPIO has furnished him the information. But with regard to his second query about pay fixation of some employees of ICM Bhopal, the CPIO has rightly given him the information that such information cannot be given as per Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005.

(4) The undersigned has further observed the history of the appellant of filing of RTI application with NCCT under which he has been misusing the provisions of the RTI Act by seeking information not permissible under the RTI Act.

(5) The appeal is accordingly disposed of. However, if the appellant is still aggrieved, he may file a second appeal with the Hon'ble Central Information Commission (CIC) within 45 days of his filing the first appeal.”

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

2. Second Appeal No.: CIC/MOCOP/A/2025/604789 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.09.2024 seeking the following information:

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 25.09.2024 stating as under:

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.10.2024. The FAA order not on record Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

3. Second Appeal No.: CIC/MOCOP/A/2025/604789 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.11.2024 seeking the following information:

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 31.12.2024 stating as under:

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.01.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 06.02.2025 stated as under:

“

(1) This first appeal dated 05.01.2025 under Section 19 of RTI Act, 2005 has been filed by Shri Shish Pal, a contractual employee at RICM, Chandigarh, and the appellant of the case having been aggrieved by the reply of the Central Public Information Officer. NCCT HQ dated 31- 12-2024.

(2) The Appellant has stated in support of his present appeal that the Central Public Information Officer is duty bound to furnish information. He also mentioned that he was not given the details of the First Appellant Authority, his telephone number, e-mail ete, so as to facilitate his filing of First appeal to the undersigned. He alleged that he was wrongly denied information as sought for under the pretext of Section 8(1) (j) of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2290

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONSANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL, Information CommissionerShish Pal – AppellantVersusThe CPIO – RespondentCIC/MOCOP/A/2024/645143|CIC/MOCOP/A/2025/604789|CIC/MOCOP/A/2025/611791

Personal employee details exempt under RTI Section 8(1)(j) absent larger public interest; RTI not absolute, misuse through vague/repetitive queries for litigation rejected; exercise right judiciously to avoid obstructing governance.

Cases Referred (2)

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL, Information Commissioner
Shish Pal – Appellant
Versus
The CPIO – Respondent
CIC/MOCOP/A/2024/645143|CIC/MOCOP/A/2025/604789|CIC/MOCOP/A/2025/611791