Disclosure of personal information is exempt under RTI unless larger public interest is proven.

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the State Information Commissioner upon the appeal filed by the respondent No.2.

2. By application dated 10.05.2018, respondent No.2 herein has sought for following information:

3. In response, the Public Information Officer had furnished the information as regard item No.1 and declined to issue any information with regard to item Nos.2, 3 and 4. As regards, item No.5, it was responded that the communication was oral and there was no written communication in that regard. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.2 had preferred an appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the First Appellate Authority. First Appellate Authority by its order dated 23.08.2018, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CBSE and another Vs. Aditya Bhandopadyay reported in (2011) 8 SCC 497 , more particularly relying on paragraph No.63 of the judgment , proceeded to dismiss the appeal upholding the response issued by the Information Authority. Being aggrieved, respondent No.2 preferred second appeal before the Karnataka Information Commission in KIC No.14441/APL/2018.

4. By impugned order, the Commissioner has upheld the response of the Information Officer to the extent of item Nos.2 and 3 and has however directed for issuance of information as sought for at item No.4.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the said information is in the nature of confidential and private pertaining to remarks (adverse/advisory remarks) issued to particular officer and the same cannot be made available for public information. He submits that the same is covered under the provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act. That the respondent No.1-Authority without even adverting to the said aspect of the matter and without even assigning any reason whatsoever by its cryptic order directed furnishing of the information as sought for in item No.4. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 does not dispute the factual and legal aspect of the matter.

7. Respondent No.2 is absent.

8. The paragraph No.3 of the interim order reads as follows:

9. Though the respondent No.1-Authority has accepted the reasons assigned by the Information Officer with regard to item Nos.2 and 3, it has restricted its order only to item No.4. The reason assigned by the Information Officer for declining to provide information is that the same are the remarks with regard to the Judicial Officers, which are confidential in nature. Sections 8 (1)e and 8(1)j of the RTI Act providing for exemption from disclosure of information reads as under:

8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen.-

(a) xxxx

(b) xxxx

(c) xxxx

(d) xxxx

(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the Competent Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

(f) xxxx

(g) xxxx

(h) xxxx

(i) 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:

10. Clearly information as sought for by respondent No.2 is with regard to the Communication of remarks and acceptance of the remark of a judicial officer which falls within the exempted category.

11. Respondent No.2 cannot as a matter of