9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (4) TMI 424 - HC - Indian LawsRTI Application denied for want of information about some adverse entries allegedly made in the Annual Confidential Report of Ms. Jyoti Balasundram, Member/CESTAT by the President of the CESTAT for the year 2000-01 and follow-up action thereupon - Held that - Since the petitioner wanted information contained in personal files relating to ACRs, this information was of personal officers viz-a-viz person who is not an employee of the Government of India and seeking such an information as a matter of public was accordingly treated as third party information - when third party information regarding ACRs was sought, the procedure outlined under Section 11(1) under RTI Act had to be followed i.e. opinion is formed by the CIC that the disclosure of information would be in public interest - the procedure under Section 11(1), which is mandatory has to be followed which includes, giving of notice to the concerned officer information whose ACR is sought for and if that officer pleads private defense that defense has to be examined while deciding the issue - the learned Single Judge has rightly held that except in cases involving overriding public interest, the ACR record of the officer cannot be disclosed - Since the matter was not looked into by the CIC, the learned Single Judge remitted the case back to the CIC appeal rejected.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the information sought by the appellant under the RTI Act about adverse entries in the ACR of a third party can be disclosed. 2. Whether such information is considered "third party information" and if it is protected under Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act. 3. Whether the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act was followed. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disclosure of Information under RTI Act: The appellant sought information under the RTI Act regarding adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of a third party, specifically Ms. Jyoti Balasundram, Member/CESTAT, for the year 2000-01. The CPIO of CESTAT denied this request, claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also ruled that the information sought was "third party information" and remitted the matter back to the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) to consider whether the information could be disclosed in the public interest after following the procedure prescribed in Section 11 of the RTI Act. 2. Classification as "Third Party Information": The learned Single Judge and the CIC both classified the information sought as "third party information." The Single Judge relied on the Division Bench judgment in Arvind Kejriwal Vs. CPIO, AIR 2010 Delhi 216, which held that information contained in personal files, including ACRs, is personal to the officers concerned and constitutes "third party information." This classification implies that the information cannot be disclosed without following the mandatory procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act, which includes giving notice to the third party and considering their objections. 3. Procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act: Section 11(1) of the RTI Act mandates that before disclosing any information related to a third party, the CPIO must notify the third party and invite them to make a submission regarding whether the information should be disclosed. The CIC must then consider these submissions and decide whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs any harm to the third party's interests. The learned Single Judge remitted the matter to the CIC to follow this procedure and determine if the larger public interest justified the disclosure of the information sought by the appellant. Analysis of Arguments and Judgments: The appellant argued that the information sought was in the public interest as it related to the integrity of a public servant. He cited the Supreme Court judgment in State of UP Vs. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 865, and the Kerala High Court judgment in Centre for Earth Sciences Studies Vs. Anson Sebastian, 2010 (2) KLT 233, to support his claim. However, the High Court reiterated that the procedure under Section 11(1) must be followed, as established in the Arvind Kejriwal case. The Kerala High Court judgment was noted but not followed, as the binding precedent was the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Arvind Kejriwal. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the learned Single Judge. It emphasized that the mandatory procedure under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act must be followed, which includes notifying the third party and considering their objections before deciding on the disclosure of the information. The matter was remitted back to the CIC to determine if the larger public interest justified the disclosure of the information and to follow the prescribed procedure.
|
