Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 12626
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Anandi Ramalingam, Information Commissioner
Onkar Das – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited – Respondent
CIC/BSNLD/A/2024/651218|CIC/BSNLD/A/2024/651217|CIC/BSNLD/A/2024/650780|CIC/BSNLD/A/2024/650779|CIC/BSNLD/A/2024/650767
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Saikat Das
Personal records of third parties are exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act unless public interest is established. Public authorities are not bound to provide information requiring inferences, opinions, or assumptions, or requests that are vague and fall outside the scope of existing material records.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 2(f), 8(1)(h), 8(1)(j), 11 - Public information - Disclosure of information - Third party information - Personal records - Vague and non-specific applications - Denied as pertained to third parties and pending investigations - Held, personal records, including performance evaluation and disciplinary proceedings, are entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
(B) RTI Act - Scope and ambit - Public authority not required to furnish information requiring drawing of inferences, assumptions, or providing advice/opinion - Indiscriminate demands adversely affect the efficiency of administration. (Para 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed several RTI applications seeking certified copies of various office records, note sheets, disciplinary case details, and personal service information of third-party staff members. The CPIO and First Appellate Authority denied access citing Section 8(1)(h) for matters under investigation and Section 8(1)(j)/Section 11 for third-party personal records. The appellant approached the Commission in second appeal alleging the provided information was incomplete or misleading.
Findings of Court:
The Commission observed that the respondent provided appropriate replies. Personal information of third parties without public interest or relationship to public activity is exempt from disclosure. Furthermore, the requests were noted as non-specific, vague, and requiring the creation of information not defined under Section 2(f) of the Act.
Issues: Whether the sought information qualifies as 'information' under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and whether the exemptions under Section 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) were correctly applied.
Ratio Decidendi: Information relating to third-party personal records and professional achievements or disciplinary proceedings is exempt under Section 8(1)(j). Public authorities are not obligated to create content, draw inferences, or furnish opinions not existing in material records. Protection of privacy and the prevention of administrative burden from indiscriminate, vague demands are essential under the legislative intent of the Act.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appellant filed five rti applications seeking service/disciplinary records, which were denied by the cpio. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. information related to pending investigations can be exempted under section 8(1)(h) of the rti act. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 3. personal information of third parties is protected from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) unless public interest is proven. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 4. rti act is not intended for non-specific, vague queries or forcing public authorities to draw inferences. (Para 11 , 12) |
Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R Second Appeal No. CIC/BSNLD/A/2024/651218
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:
This has reference to the appeal to the CGM KOL TD vide No.:
MEMORANDUM/06022023/2, Dated: 21.09.2023 (delivered on 22.09.2023) which is undecided and not disposed of even after the lapse of more than ten months. In this regard, following information may be furnished please:
a) Certified copy of all the records (all the note sheets and other records/notes referred to therein) of the office file/files (physical File/e-File) wherein the above appeal dated: 21.09.2023 has been acted upon till date.
b) Certified copy of the DoPT OM/guidelines which permitted/allowed the disciplinary authority to not dispose of and keep the case under the above appeal pending for more than a year.
c) Certified copy of the DoPT OM/guidelines which permits/allows the disciplinary authority to not dispose of and keep the case under the above appeal pending for indefinite periods.
d) Certified copy of the BSNL Corporate Office, New Delhi order which permitted/allowed the disciplinary authority to not dispose of and keep the case under the above appeal pending for more than a year.
e) Certified copy of the BSNL Corporate Office, New Delhi order which permits/allows the disciplinary authority to not dispose of and keep the case under the above appeal pending for indefinite periods.
…, etc./ other related information
1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 27.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
a) Information cannot be disclosed as per Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
b) No such order available.
c) No such order available. d) No such order available. e) No such order available.
Etc.
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.09.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 14.10.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/BSNLD/A/2024/651217
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:
This has reference to the appeals to the CGM KOL TD vide appeal No.:
MEMORANDUM/06022023/3, Dated: 01.05.2024 (delivered on 03.05.2024) and appeal No.: ORDER/B R Panigrahi/12042024/1, Dated: 15.05.2024 (delivered on 15.05.2024), which are undecided and not disposed of even after the lapse of about three months and two-and-half months respectively. In this regard, following information may be furnished please:
a) Certified copy of all the records (all the note sheets and other records/notes referred to therein) of the office file/files (physical File/e-File) wherein the above appeal dated: 01.05.2024 has been acted upon till date.
b) Certified copy of all the records (all the note sheets and other records/notes referred to therein) of the office file/files (physical File/e-File) wherein the above appeal dated: 15.05.2024 has been acted upon till date.
c) Certified copy of the DoPT OM/guidelines which permitted/allowed the CGM KOL TD to not dispose of and keep the above appeals pending for above mentioned long periods.
d) Certified copy of the DoPT OM/guidelines which permits/allows the CGM KOL TD to not dispose of and keep the above appeals pending fo
