9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (7) TMI 716 - HC - Indian LawsRight to Information Act, 2005 - Under Section 11(1) - The logic of the Section 11(1) RTI Act is plain. Once the information seeker is provided information relating to a third party, it is no longer in the private domain. Such information seeker can then disclose in turn such information to the whole world. There may be an officer who may not want the whole world to know why he or she was overlooked for promotion. The defence of privacy in such a case cannot be lightly brushed aside saying that since the officer is a public servant he or she cannot possibly fight shy of such disclosure. There may be yet another situation where the officer may have no qualms about such disclosure. And there may be a third category where the credentials of the officer appointed may be thought of as being in public interest to be disclosed. The importance of the post held may also be a factor that might weigh with the information officer. This exercise of weighing the competing interests can possibly be undertaken only after hearing all interested parties - Therefore the procedure under Section 11(1) RTI Act - Therefore, holds that the CIC was not justified in overruling the objection of the UOI on the basis of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act and-directing the UOI and the DoPT to provide copies of the documents as sought by Mr. Kejriwal.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the information seeker can be provided with copies of documents concerning government appointments without following Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. 2. Interpretation of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act regarding third-party information. 3. Applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act concerning personal information and privacy. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Provision of Documents Without Following Section 11(1) of the RTI Act: The core question was whether Mr. Kejriwal could be provided with copies of documents related to appointments at various levels in the Government of India without adhering to the procedure outlined in Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. The Central Information Commission (CIC) had allowed Mr. Kejriwal to inspect the files and directed the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to provide copies of the documents after inspection. However, the Union of India (UOI) challenged this decision, arguing that the information sought was personal to the officers and required following the procedure under Section 11(1). 2. Interpretation of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act: Section 11(1) of the RTI Act mandates that if the information sought relates to or has been supplied by a third party and is treated as confidential, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) must notify the third party and invite submissions regarding the disclosure of the information. Mr. Bhushan, representing Mr. Kejriwal, argued that the word "or" in the phrase "relates to or has been supplied by a third party" should be read as "and" to make the provision workable. On the other hand, Mr. Dubey, representing the UOI, contended that the statute was clear and unambiguous and should be read as it is. The court held that the word "or" should not be substituted with "and" and that the procedure under Section 11(1) must be followed for any third-party information. 3. Applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act: Section 8(1)(j) exempts from disclosure any information that would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy unless the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm. The court noted that the information sought by Mr. Kejriwal, which included ACRs, gradings, and vigilance clearance reports, was personal to the officers and constituted third-party information. The court emphasized that the privacy defense could be invoked by the third party and that the procedure under Section 11(1) provided a balance between privacy rights and public interest. Conclusion: The court concluded that the CIC was not justified in directing the UOI and the DoPT to provide copies of the documents without following the procedure under Section 11(1). The CIC's order was set aside, and the appeals by Mr. Kejriwal were restored to the CIC for compliance with Section 11(1). The court dismissed Mr. Kejriwal's writ petition and allowed the writ petitions filed by the UOI. Final Orders: - The impugned orders dated 12th June 2008 and 19th November 2008 of the CIC were set aside. - The appeals by Mr. Kejriwal were restored to the CIC for compliance with Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. - Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6614 of 2008 filed by Mr. Kejriwal was dismissed. - Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 8999 of 2008 and 8407 of 2009 filed by the UOI were allowed.
|
