RTI Act does not permit indiscriminate disclosure of personal employee information absent larger public interest; balances transparency against privacy and administrative efficiency; vague queries invalid; habitual misuse deprecated.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 2(f), 8(1)(j), 19 - Second appeals clubbed for common disposal - RTI applications seeking personal details of employees including pay fixation, recruitment records, and third-party service information - CPIO denied disclosure citing personal information exemption and non-availability of records - FAA upheld denial noting misuse of RTI by habitual applicant - Commission held queries vague, indeterminate, and outside RTI ambit, reiterating that right to information is not absolute and must balance public interest against privacy, efficiency of administration, and practicality; indiscriminate demands counterproductive; personal records (name, qualifications, performance, service details) protected unless larger public interest justifies disclosure (Paras 8).

(B) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Misuse and abuse - Repeated applications by contractual employee for colleagues' personal data serve no public interest, pressure public authority, misconceive RTI as unconditional right; appellant advised to exercise rights judiciously, referencing prior Commission orders cautioning against overreach (Paras 8).

Facts of the case:
Appellant, a contractual employee, filed multiple RTI applications seeking court orders, pay fixation details, recruitment records, and service information of other employees. CPIO provided public domain information but denied rest under personal information exemption, confirmed non-existence or third-party refusal. FAA dismissed first appeals citing RTI misuse. Appeals clubbed due to similar queries.

Findings of Court:
RTI replies by CPIO appropriate and in consonance with Act; no intervention warranted; appellant's history of similar filings noted.

Issues: Whether personal and third-party employee details exempt under Section 8(1)(j); validity of vague RTI queries; preventing RTI misuse for private disputes.

Ratio Decidendi: RTI not tool for indiscriminate personal data disclosure absent public interest; balances transparency against privacy, administrative efficiency; personal information (service records, qualifications) protected; vague queries outside Section 2(f).

Result: 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 th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2291

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

RTI Act does not permit indiscriminate disclosure of personal employee information absent larger public interest; balances transparency against privacy and administrative efficiency; vague queries invalid; habitual misuse deprecated.

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