W.P.(C) 6756/2010

Page 1 of 7

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on: 29.11.2011

%

Judgment delivered on: 08.12.2011

+

W.P.(C) 6756/2010

R K JAIN

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, Advocate.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR

..... Respondents

Through:

Ms. Geeta Sharma, Ms. Mithu Jain &

Ms. Manisha Dhir, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

J U D G M E N T

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1.

The petitioner assails the order dated 22.04.2010 passed by the

Central Information Commissioner (CIC) upholding the order of the First

Appellate Authority, and rejecting the petitioners application under the

Right to Information Act,2005 (RTI Act, for short) by relying upon

Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

2.

It is the petitioner’s case that upon complaints of corruption

against Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member, CESTAT, the President of the

CESTAT - a former Chief Justice of a High Court, made some adverse

entries in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of Ms. Jyoti

Balasundaram for the year 2000-01. The petitioner also alleges that

subsequently, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue opened a

file with the subject “Follow-up action on the integrity in the ACR for

2011:DHC:6267

W.P.(C) 6756/2010

Page 2 of 7

(Tech), CESTAT”. According to the petitioner, proper action was not

taken in the matter and the file was closed in favour of Ms. Jyoti

Balasundaram.

3.

The petitioner filed an application under the RTI Act on

07.10.2009 seeking inspection and copies of the note-sheets and

correspondence pages of PF File NO. 27/3/2002-AD.IC relating to Ms.

Jyoti Balasundaram.

4.

On 15.10.2009, the CPIO of CESTAT informed the petitioner that

the file contained analysis of the Annual Confidential Report of Ms. Jyoti

Balasundaram. This was claimed to be exempted under Section 8(1)(j)

of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority also rejected the

petitioner’s appeal on the same ground on 18.12.2009. By the

impugned order dated 22.04.2010 the second appeal of the petitioner

has also been rejected by the CIC by holding that the view of the

Commission has been that ACR grades should be disclosed only to the

person to whom they relate, except in exceptional circumstances. It

was also held that examination of the file comments made by the

reporting and the reviewing officer in the ACRs stand on the same

footing as the ACR itself. On this ground it was held that the said

information cannot be disclosed to a third party. It was further

observed that disclosure of such file, even to the public servant to

whom the ACRs may relate, is itself open to debate.

5.

The submission of the petitioner before this Court is that seeking

information about the follow up action in a separate file about integrity

remark in the ACR of the Member of the Tribunal is distinct and

2011:DHC:6267

W.P.(C) 6756/2010

Page 3 of 7

different from asking for the copy of the ACR itself. It is submitted that

disclosure of the information dealt with in a separate file for follow up

action are not exempted under Section 8(1)(j), since it is not a

disclosure of the personal information, viz. the ACR, but disclosure of

information which puts in question the integrity of a Member of a

Tribunal and, therefore, it concerns public interest.

6.

On 23.03.2011 after hearing the parties, the following order

came to be passed by the Court:

“1.

List on 8^th July, 2011”.

7.

The respondents produced the original record in terms of the

order dated 23.03.2011 before me and I have perused the same.

8.

Upon a perusal of the file produced by the respondent, to me it

appears that the said follow up action file cannot be said not to be

connected with, or related to the Annual Confidential Report file of Ms.

Jyoti Balasundaram. The said file contains correspondence in relation

to the remark recorded by the President of the CESTAT in relation to

Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram