Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 4879
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Swagat Das, INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Mukul Chandra Vishvas – Appellant
Versus
C.P.I.O, East Central Railway – Respondent
File No: CIC/ECRHJ/A/2024/640977
Personal information exempt under RTI S.8(1)(j) unless larger public interest justifies disclosure.
Headnote:First Paragraph: The Right to Information Act, 2005, particularly Section 8(1)(j), exempts personal information of third parties from disclosure unless larger public interest justifies it. The appellant sought personal details related to third parties, which the CPIO denied citing privacy exemption. The Commission found no larger public interest established and upheld the denial, noting some queries sought opinions not record-based under Section 2(f). Second Paragraph: The key issue was whether the requested personal information warranted disclosure overriding privacy exemption. The Commission relied on Supreme Court precedents defining personal information broadly, including professional and medical records, emphasizing protection absent public interest, and clarified RTI does not mandate explanations or advice. Last Paragraph: The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rti procedural history and information sought. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. hearing facts and parties' contentions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. information provided; personal exemption applies. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. s.8(1)(j) text and supreme court precedents. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. no opinions under rti; appeal dismissed. (Para 15 , 16) |
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29-03-2024 seeking the following information:
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 12-04-2024 stating as under:
3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16-05-2024. The F.A.A vide order dated 13-06-2024 stating as under:
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through Video-Conference.
Respondent: Shri Kuldeep Yadav, DEE/TRD/Danapur & APIO present through Video-Conference.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 13.09.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.
6. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
7. The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that till date information has not been provided to him by the Respondent and the same was wrongly denied to him.
8. Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they have categorically informed the Appellant that the information sought by him is personal information of third parties and the same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
9. Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent stated that they have shared a copy of their written submissions with the Appellant.
Decision:
10. The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core contention raised by the Appellant in the instant Second Appeal was non-receipt of information from the Respondent. In this regard, it was noted that reply in the matter has already been provided to the Appellant.
11. The Commission observes that the Appellant had asked information which is related to personal information of third-parties which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has not disclosed or establish any larger public interest in disclosing the information.
12. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
“8. Exemption from disclosure of information.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,
xxxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;..”
13. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 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 & 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
