2010 (2) TMI 986 - HC - Indian Laws

Right to Information - whether the immunity or exemption claimed by the appellant under Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the Act is tenable? Whether the information sought by the first respondent relates to personal information of other employees, the disclosure of which is prohibited under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act? Held that - Section 8(1)(e) has no application because it deals with information available with the person in his fiduciary relationship with another. Information under this head is nothing but information in trust which but for the relationship would not have been conveyed or known to the person concerned. This applies to the relationship that exists between a patient and a Doctor, a lawyer and a client etc. We do not find any application of this provision in relation to the information sought by an employee about other co-employees of the same employer. We do not think the Confidential Reports of the employees maintained by the appellant can be treated as records pertaining to personal information of an employee, the publication of which is prohibited under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. We, therefore, concur with the findings of the learned Single Judge on this issue. w.p. dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. Interpretation of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Applicability of Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005

The appellant, a State Government agency, rejected the first respondent's request for information related to certain documents and Confidential Reports. The appellant claimed immunity under Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which deals with information available in a fiduciary relationship. The court clarified that this provision applies to relationships like patient-doctor or lawyer-client, not to co-employees seeking information about each other. The court upheld the learned Single Judge's decision in rejecting the appellant's claim under Section 8(1)(e).

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005

Regarding the disclosure of personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, the court examined whether the information sought by the first respondent constituted personal information of other employees. The court emphasized that personal information can be disclosed in the larger public interest. The court found that the documents related to a domestic enquiry against an employee and the Confidential Reports of other employees were not personal information causing unwarranted invasion of privacy. The court noted that Confidential Reports are no longer private documents and are essential for employees' appraisal and service benefits. The court agreed with the learned Single Judge that the information requested did not fall under the prohibition of Section 8(1)(j) and dismissed the Writ Appeals.

In conclusion, the court upheld the decisions of the learned Single Judge regarding the appellant's immunity claims under Section 8(1)(e) and the interpretation of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, emphasizing the importance of considering the larger public interest in disclosing information.