SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3258

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Information Commissioner
Anubhav Khanna – Appellant
Versus
CPIO, National Academy of Customs, Indirect Taxes and Narcotics – Respondent
CIC/DGNAN/A/2024/628989



Advocates:
For the Appellant: Maharaj Saran Khanna
For the Respondent: Rajesh Roy

Requests for personal information must demonstrate public interest; privacy rights protected under RTI Act exemptions.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(j) - Exemption from disclosure of personal information - The Appellant sought personal details concerning an employee related to a family dispute, citing the RTI but failed to establish any larger public interest justifying disclosure. The FAA’s order on disclosure of salary as per Section 4(1)(b)(x) was upheld, while other requests were rejected due to privacy concerns. (Paras 5.1, 5.10, 12)

Table of Content
1. request for personal information on third-party employee. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. first appellate authority's ruling regarding personal information. (Para 5 , 6)
3. compliance with faa’s order is mandatory. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. decision to disclose salary but protect other personal info. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.03.2024 (online) seeking the following information:

“This information is required in context of Sanjiv D. P. Azad (Emp ID- 8930) who belongs to IRS-CBIC service and is presently employed as Assistant Director, NACIN, Chandigarh. His niece Prerna has filed a FIR of 498 A against me and my aged parents and according to law I am entitled to this information as according to the information received, her parents have made an expense of Rs. 65 lacs in the marriage as claimed by them in the FIR.

1. Annual movable property returns (cash/jewelry/cars etc.) filed by him till date. (Relevant decision of CIC dated 20 March,2008 No. CIC/OK/A/2007/01493 & CIC/OK/A/2008/00027 regarding providing such information to public is attached for ready reference). He is bound to do this declaration according to The All-India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.

2 .Please inform me any permission taken by him from your department for accepting gift during his tenure of service.

3.Whether as per your department records, he was involved in borrowing or lending money? if yes then provide the details and also provide the information whether he has taken due permission from your department and filed return of his liabilities? (provide photocopy of all such documents furnished by him as per staff regulation /other relevant rules)

4.Gross Salary and its various components like basic pay DA, Conveyance, HRA and other allowances of Sanjiv DP Azad currently. (disclosure of such information to public should be made as per RTI act 2005 under section 4(1)(b))

5. Please inform me the declarations that he has made for spending more then Rs. 15,000 during his tenure of service. He is bound to do this declaration according to The All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.

6. Declarations made by Sanjiv Azad for doing modifications made to his immovable property and the related expenses.

7. Please inform me the declarations that he has made for giving any kind of gifts to his relatives or dependents and the amounts involved.

8. Please inform me the declarations that he has made regarding acquiring any kind of movable property via inheritance.

9 Please inform me the declarations that he has made regarding acquiring any kind of immovable property acquired by his family members.

10 Please inform me the declarations that he has made regarding acquiring any kind of movable property above Rs. 15000 acquired by his family members.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 18.04.2024 stating as under:

“In this regard, it is informed that the information sought by you in point no. 1 to 10 vide above said RTI application pertains to third party information. This office had called for the consent of the official to share the information. The official had denied sharing the information sought by you. Therefore, the RTI application is rejected under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.04.2024.

The FAA vide its order dated 15.05.2024, held as under:

“5.1 I have gone through the original RTI application dated 19.03.2024 of the Appellant, reply dated 15.04.2024 of CPIO and First Appeal dated 18.04.2024 with reference to the legal provisions of RTI Act, 2005, his submissions during personal hearing dated 30.04.2024 & submissions made via email dated 30.04.2024. Therefore, I proceed to examine the appeal Dated 18.04.2024 based on the available facts of the case.

5.2 I find that appellant has sought certain information in respect of Sh. Sanjiv D.P. Azad, working in NACIN, ZTI, Chandigarh vide RTI application dated 19.03.2024.

5.3 I find that the re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top