Back
for Employee LTC and CGHS Don't Justify Personal Data Disclosure:
The has firmly ruled that the mere involvement of in employee benefits such as Leave Travel Concession (LTC) and Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) reimbursements does not automatically strip those benefits of their personal nature, making them disclosable under the .
Justice Amit Mahajan, presiding over a single-judge bench, dismissed a writ petition filed by Sachin Kumar Daksh, who had sought detailed about a colleague at the . The court held that such information falls squarely within the exemption under , which protects unless a is demonstrated.
The RTI Request: Seeking Intimate Personal Details
The petitioner had filed an RTI application on , seeking a host of personal details concerning Mr. Komal Prasad, a DGCA employee. The requested information included:
- Details of LTC availed by Mr. Prasad and his dependents from October 2016, including settlement forms and tickets.
- CGHS medical facility details availed by his dependents since his joining, along with medical bills.
- Family declaration forms submitted by Mr. Prasad.
- Any other LTC trips undertaken with dependents, with full settlement details.
The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of DGCA rejected the application on , citing Section 8(1)(j). This rejection was upheld by the First Appellate Authority on , and subsequently by the (CIC) on .
vs. Personal Privacy: The Core Argument
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that since LTC and CGHS benefits involve expenditure from , the information should be disclosed in the to ensure transparency and accountability.
The court, however, rejected this contention, drawing a crucial distinction. Justice Mahajan noted that the information sought was not merely aggregate figures of expenditure but rather specific details about identifiable family members, their travel, medical treatment, and family declarations.
“Such information, by its very nature, concerns the private affairs of the concerned employee and more significantly, of his family members who are third parties,” the court observed.
The judgment emphasized that the right to information under the RTI Act is not unqualified. Section 8(1)(j) explicitly exempts whose disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause .
Matrimonial Dispute: A Hidden Motive?
Adding a significant layer to the case, the respondents pointed out that the petitioner was married to the sister of Mr. Komal Prasad and that matrimonial disputes had arisen, with divorce proceedings already initiated. The court took judicial notice of this context, noting that the RTI mechanism could not be permitted to become a tool for settling personal scores.
“The RTI mechanism cannot be permitted to become a means to settle personal scores or to pursue grievances arising out of matrimonial disputes, particularly when the information sought pertains to the personal affairs of a ,” the judgment stated.
The court also dismissed the petitioner's claim that the information was needed to pursue vigilance complaints, holding that such a purpose could not create an independent right to access otherwise exempted information.
No Established
The court underscored that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any overriding that would justify overriding the privacy rights of the employee and his family members. Merely stating that the benefits involved was insufficient.
“Additionally, merely stating that the benefits in question may have involved expenditure from cannot, by itself, render the underlying liable to disclosure, that too when the Petitioner has not demonstrated any overriding which would warrant disclosure of the of the concerned employee and his family members,” the court ruled.
Final Verdict: Upholding Privacy Under RTI
Dismissing the writ petition, the High Court upheld the orders of the CPIO, First Appellate Authority, and the CIC. The decision reinforces the principle that while the RTI Act promotes transparency, it also safeguards personal privacy, especially of third parties. The judgment serves as a reminder that the right to information must be balanced against the , and that the mere use of does not automatically transform personal details into public information.
