2007 (3) TMI 656 - Commission - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
Request for disclosure of information under RTI Act, Exemption under Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act, Public interest vs. protected interests, Disclosure of identities in case of unfair decision making, Application of Section 8(2) of RTI Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Request for disclosure of information under RTI Act:
The appellant sought information regarding a discreet inquiry conducted against him, including the complaint, inquiry report, names of officers involved, and inspection of inquiry file. The CPIO declined to disclose certain information citing exemption under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.

2. Exemption under Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act:
The CPIO upheld the decision to withhold information under Section 8(1)(g) which exempts disclosure of identities of Enquiry Officers and those assisting in the inquiry. This exemption aims to protect the identities of individuals involved in discreet inquiries to maintain confidentiality and prevent undue pressure or harm.

3. Public interest vs. protected interests:
The judgment delves into the balance between public interest in disclosure and the harm to protected interests. It highlights the need for good governance and credible decision-making based on actionable information, even if exceptions like misuse may occur.

4. Disclosure of identities in case of unfair decision making:
The appellant, having been vindicated by a court decision against an unfair transfer based on a discreet inquiry, sought to unmask those responsible for his victimization. The judgment discusses the importance of transparency and accountability in such cases, especially when unfair decision-making is established.

5. Application of Section 8(2) of RTI Act:
The judgment applies Section 8(2) of the RTI Act, which allows access to information if public interest outweighs harm to protected interests. In this case, the appellant's right to know the identities of those involved in the unfair decision-making process is upheld, emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability in governance.

In conclusion, the judgment allows the appeal, directing the CPIO to allow the appellant to inspect the files related to his case and take necessary copies. It emphasizes the need for transparency, especially in cases of unfair decision-making, where public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to protected interests.