2011 (12) TMI 23 - HC - Indian Laws

Disclosure of third party information- Held that - The recordings made in the note sheets or correspondence file constitute an integral part of the ACR record of the officer. It cannot be said such information is different and distinct from the Annual Confidential Report. Such information is personal to such officers. Vis- -vis a person who is not an employee of the Government of India and is seeking such information as a member of the public, such information has to be viewed as constituting third party information . Clearly, information relating to a third party would also be third party information within the meaning of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the CIC for considering the issue whether, in the larger public interest, the information sought by the petitioner could be disclosed. If the CIC comes to a conclusion that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information sought by the petitioner, the CIC would follow the procedure prescribed in Section 11 of the Act.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner's application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) rejected based on Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
2. Whether notes in the file opened by the respondent can be disclosed to the petitioner and if withholding information under Section 8(1)(j) requires following the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the rejection of their RTI application seeking information related to integrity remarks in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of a tribunal member. The Central Information Commissioner (CIC) upheld the rejection under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, citing that ACR grades should only be disclosed to the person concerned. The petitioner argued that seeking information on integrity remarks is distinct from the ACR itself and concerns public interest.
2. The Court directed the respondent to produce the relevant records for assessment. Upon perusal, the Court found that the follow-up action file was connected to the ACR, containing correspondence on the integrity remarks. The Court rejected the petitioner's claim that the file held different information from the ACR.
3. Referring to the case of Arvind Kejriwal Vs CPIO, the Court highlighted that ACR information is personal and may constitute third-party information. It emphasized the importance of following the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act for disclosure, especially in cases involving third-party information.
4. The Court noted that the CIC did not assess whether larger public interest justified disclosing the information sought by the petitioner. As a result, the matter was remanded back to the CIC for consideration of public interest and, if warranted, to follow the procedure under Section 11 for disclosure.
5. While acknowledging a previous decision, the Court emphasized the need to evaluate public interest in disclosing information and instructed the CIC to reexamine the issue. The judgment concluded by remanding the matter to the CIC for further consideration based on the principle of larger public interest.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised, the arguments presented, and the legal principles applied, ensuring a detailed understanding of the case and its implications.