Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,DIPAK MISRA
GIRISH RAMCHANDRA DESHPANDE – Appellant
Versus
CEN.INFORMATION COMMR.. – Respondent
SLP(C) No.-027734-027734 / 2012
03-10-2012
JATIN ZAVERI
Information regarding a public servant's service record (disciplinary actions) and financial assets/liabilities constitutes "personal information" under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, and is exempt from disclosure unless a larger public interest is established to justify the invasion of privacy.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(j) - Exemption from disclosure of personal information - Information relating to service career and financial assets - Whether details of memos, show cause notices, censure, and assets/liabilities of a public servant constitute personal information - Disclosures must have a relationship to public activity or interest or be justified by larger public interest to override privacy of the individual. (Paras 11-13)
(B) Details disclosed in income tax returns, including assets, liabilities, and gifts, qualify as personal information under Section 8(1)(j) and are exempt from disclosure unless a larger public interest is established. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
An application was filed seeking detailed information regarding a public servant, including appointment orders, salary details, transfer orders, disciplinary actions (memos, show cause notices, censure), and details of assets, liabilities, and gifts. The request was partially denied by the public information officer and subsequently by the appellate authority on the grounds that the information was personal and its disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy without serving a larger public interest.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the performance of an employee in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and is governed by service rules. Such information, along with financial details found in income tax returns, constitutes personal information. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a bona fide public interest that would justify the disclosure of such private information.
Issues: Whether information regarding a public servant's service career (disciplinary actions) and financial details (assets and liabilities) qualifies as "personal information" under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and whether such information can be disclosed in the absence of a larger public interest.
Ratio Decidendi: Information relating to an employee's performance, such as memos and punishment orders, as well as financial details disclosed in income tax returns, falls within the scope of "personal information" under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Disclosure of such information is prohibited as it causes an unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless the authority is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies the disclosure.
Result: Special leave petition dismissed.
ORDER
JUDGMENT
1. Delay condoned.
2. We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether the Central Information Commissioner (for short 'the CIC') acting under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'the RTI Act') was right in denying information regarding the third respondent's personal matters pertaining to his service career and also denying the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties on the ground that the information sought for was qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
3. The petitioner herein had submitted an application on 27.8.2008 before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour, Government of India) calling for various details relating to third respondent, who was employed as an Enforcement Officer in Sub-Regional Office, Akola, now working in the State of Madhya Pradesh. As many as 15 queries were made to which the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur gave the following reply on 15.9.2008:
“As to Point No.1: Copy of appointment order of Shri A.B. Lute, is in 3 pages. You have sought the details of salary in respect of Shri A.B. Lute, which relates to personal information the disclosures of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of individual hence denied as per the RTI provision under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.
As to Point No.2: Copy of order of granting Enforcement Officer Promotion to Shri A.B. Lute, is in 3 Number. Details of salary to the post along with statutory and other deductions of Mr. Lute is denied to provide as per RTI provisions under Section 8(1)(j) for the reasons mentioned above.
As to Point NO.3: All the transfer orders of Shri A.B. Lute, are in 13 Numbers. Salary details is rejected as per the provision under Section 8(1)(j) for the reason mentioned above.
As to Point No.4: The copies of memo, show cause notice, censure issued to Mr. Lute, are not being provided on the ground that it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Please see RTI provision under Section 8(1)(j).
As to Point No.5: Copy of EPF (Staff & Conditions) Rules 1962 is in 60 pages.
As to Point No.6: Copy of return of assets and liabilities in respect of Mr. Lute cannot be provided as per the provision of RTI Act under Section 8(1)(j) as per the reason explained above at point No.1.
As to Point No.7: Details of investment and other related details are rejected as per the provision of RTI Act under Section 8(1)(j) as per the reason explained above at point No.1.
As to Point No.8: Copy of report of item wise and value wise details of gifts accepted by Mr. Lute, is rejected as per the provisions of RTI Act under Section 8(1)(j) as per the reason explained above at point No.1.
As to Point No.9: Copy of details of movable, immovable properties of Mr. Lute, the request to provide the same is rejected as per the RTI Provisions under Section 8(1)(j).
As to Point No.10: Mr. Lute is not claiming for TA/DA for attending the criminal case pending at JMFC, Akola.
As to Point No.11: Copy of Notification is in 2 numbers.
As to Point No.12: Copy of certified true copy of charge sheet issued to Mr. Lute – The matter pertains with head Office, Mumbai. Your application is being forwarded to Head Office, Mumbai as per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005.
As to Point No.13: Certified True copy of complete enquiry proceedings initiated against Mr. Lute – It would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individuals and has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Please see RTI provisions under Section 8(1)(j).
As to Point No.14: It would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individuals and has no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence denied to provide.
As to Point No.15: Certified true copy of second show cause notice – It would cause u
