W.P.(C) 803/2009

Page 1 of 16

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on: 27.04.2009

Judgment pronounced on: 01.07.2009

+

W.P. (C) 803/2009

VIJAY PRAKASH

..... Petitioner

Through: Petitioner in person.

versus

UOI AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. S.K. Dubey with

Mr. K.B. Thakur and Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers

Yes

may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be

Yes

reported in the Digest?

Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat

1. The petitioner in this proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

challenges a decision of the Central Information Commission (CIC) dated 17.12.2008 (the

impugned order] affirming the decision of the appellate authority under the Right to

Information Act, 2005 *hereafter, “the Information Act”+ not to allow disclosure of the

information sought.

2. The facts necessary for deciding the case are that the petitioner is a former officer of the

Indian Air Force. He apparently got married in 2001. According to the averments, he had sought

resignation from the Indian Air Force, which was granted on 30.09.2001. His wife was inducted

2009:DHC:2434

W.P.(C) 803/2009

Page 2 of 16

in the Defence Research Development Organization (DRDO) on 31.03.2005 and was posted at 4,

Air Force Selection Board (“AFSB”), Varanasi. Eventually, differences cropped up between the

two, and his wife applied for divorce. The petitioner caused to be served, through his counsel,

an application to the Station Commander, 4 AFSB, requesting for information in respect of his

wife’s service records pertaining to all leave application forms submitted by her; attested copies

of nomination of DSOP and other official documents with financial implications, and the

changes made to them; record of investments made and reflected in the service documents of

his wife, along with nominations thereof.

3.

The information application was declined by the Public Information Officer, i.e. the Wing

Commander of the 4, AFSB by his letter dated 25.04.2007 on the ground that the particulars

sought for related to personal information, exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the Information

Act; that disclosure of such information had no relation with any public activity or interest and

that it would cause unwarranted invasion into the privacy of the individual. The petitioner felt

aggrieved and preferred an appeal under Section 19 of the Information Act. The appeal was

rejected by an order dated 25.01.2008 by the Air Vice Marshal, Senior Officer Incharge,

Administration, of the Indian Air Force, who was the designated Appellate authority. Feeling

aggrieved, the writ petitioner preferred a second appeal to the Central Information

Commissioner.

4.

By the impugned order, the CIC, after discussing the arguments and pleas advanced,

rejected the appeal. The relevant part of the impugned order, upholding the determination of

the authorities, including the appellate authority is as follows:-

2009:DHC:2434

W.P.(C) 803/2009

Page 3 of 16

appeal.”

5.

The writ petitioner, a self-represented litigant, argues that the approach of the

authorities under the Information Act has been unduly narrow and technical. He emphasized

that by virtue of Section 6, a right is vested in every person to claim information of all sorts

which exists on the record. He relied upon Section 2 (i) and (j) to say that information under the

Act has been defined in the widest possible manner and that the question of exceptions should

be construed from the perspective of the right rather than the exemptions, which has been

done in this case. Reliance was placed upon Division Bench ruling in Surup Singh Hrya Naik v.

State of Maharashtra AIR 2007 Bom 121 to submit that ordinarily information sought