WPC No.8524/2009

Page 1

REPORTABLE

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 8524 OF 2009

Reserved on : 23^rd July, 2009.

%

Date of Decision : 4^th November , 2009.

RAJINDER JAINA ..... Petitioner.

Through Mr.Rajesh Garg, Advocate.

VERSUS

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

& OTHERS.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate.

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be

allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

YES

3. Whether the judgment should be reported

in the Digest?

YES

SANJIV KHANNA, J.:

1. Mr. Rajinder Jaina-petitioner seeks issue of Writ of Certiorari for

quashing of Order dated 2^nd March, 2009 passed by the Central

Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as CIC, for short)

directing disclosure of the following information :-

“1.

List of all complaints filed against

Mr.Rajinder Jaina alias Rajender Jain alias

Mr.Rajender Jaina S/o.T.C. Jain r/o. Flat „P‟,

Sagar Apartments, G. Tilak Marg, New Delhi-

2009:DHC:4602

WPC No.8524/2009

Page 2

110001, office at N-52A, Connaught Circus,

New Delhi-110001.

2. All FIR‟s filed against the above named

person along with ATR and current status.

3. All arrest warrants and non-traceable

reports issued in the name of Mr.T.C.Jaina,

father of Mr.Rajender Jaina.

4. List of all complaints filed against

M/s.Rajendra‟s and M/lord Builders Pvt. Ltd.

Period for which information asked for :

From 1980 till date.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that disclosure of

information mentioned above is an unwarranted invasion on the

right to privacy of the petitioner and is contrary to Section 8(1)(j) of

the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as Act,

for short).

4. Right to privacy has been a subject matter and reiterated in

the State of Andhra Pradesh and District Registrar and

Collector, Hyderabad and another versus Canara Bank and

others (2005) 1 SCC 496. However, the said right is not an

absolute right. Right to information is a part of Right to Freedom of

Speech and Expression. Section 8(1)(j) of the Act balances right to

privacy and right to information. It recognizes that both rights are

important and require protection and in case of conflict between

the two rights, the test of over-riding public interest is applied to

decide whether information should be withheld or disclosed.

2009:DHC:4602

WPC No.8524/2009

Page 3

5. Section 8(i)(j) of the Act, stands interpreted by Ravindra Bhat,

J. in The CPIO, Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg, New Delhi

versus Subhash Chandra Agarwal & another (Writ Petition No.

288/2009) decided on 2^nd September, 2009. It has been held as

under:-

“66. It could arguably be said that that privacy

rights, by virtue of Section 8(1)(j) whenever

asserted, would prevail. However, that is not always

the case, since the public interest element, seeps

through that provision. Thus when a member of the

public requests personal information about a public

servant, - such as asset declarations made by him-

a distinction must be made between the personal

data inherent to the position and those that are not,

and therefore affect only his/her private life. This

balancing task appears to be easy; but is in

practice, not so, having regard to the dynamics

inherent in the conflict. If public access to the

personal data containing details, like photographs of

public servants, personal particulars such as their

dates of birth, personal identification numbers, or

other personal information furnished to public

agencies, is requested, the balancing exercise,

necessarily dependant and evolving on a case by

case basis, would take into account of many factors

which would require examination, having regard to

circumstances of each case.