2011 (7) TMI 1012 - HC - Indian Laws

RTI - application seeking permission to inspect statement of assets disclosure submitted by the I.A.S. Officers - application was rejected by the Public Information Officer on the ground that the information sought was exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act Held that - right of the appellant to have the inspection of the assets declaration cannot be denied on the ground that they are personal informations, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, as the same is no more available in the wake of the subsequent events, namely, the assets details have been hosted on the website. appellant would be entitled to the inspection of the assets details of the I.A.S. Officers furnished by them in sealed cover to the State Government, the application requesting the information with reference to the office cannot be ordered, as such information should be made with reference to the individual officer with specific request by naming him/her. appellant would be entitled to the furnishing of such information, which includes the inspection of the assets details of the concerned officer. writ appeal is ordered accordingly.

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. Public interest and transparency in the disclosure of IAS officers' asset details.
3. The legal obligations of IAS officers under Rule 16 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.
4. The role and decisions of the State Information Commission and Central Information Commission.
5. The impact of subsequent government circulars and events on the disclosure of information.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005:
The appellant's request for inspection of asset disclosures by IAS officers was initially rejected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts personal information from disclosure if it has no relationship to any public activity or interest or would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The State Information Commission upheld this exemption, asserting that asset details are personal information and there was no established public interest cause for their disclosure. However, the court found that the assets declaration by IAS officers, mandated under Rule 16 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, cannot be considered purely personal information inaccessible by public authorities. The court emphasized that the right to information, a fundamental right, cannot be denied on the grounds of inaccessibility by the public authority, especially when no specific rule restricts such accessibility.

2. Public Interest and Transparency in the Disclosure of IAS Officers' Asset Details:
The court highlighted the importance of transparency and accountability in a democratic government, asserting that the public has a right to know about the functioning of the government and its officials. The court referred to various Supreme Court judgments that recognized the right to information as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court concluded that the disclosure of IAS officers' asset details promotes transparency and accountability, essential components of a participatory democracy, and thus serves a larger public interest.

3. Legal Obligations of IAS Officers under Rule 16 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968:
Rule 16 mandates IAS officers to submit a return of their assets and liabilities to the government. The court noted that the assets details, though submitted in sealed covers, are not confidential or private information inaccessible by the government. The court cited a government circular dated 4-4-2011, which directed that the annual property returns of IAS officers be placed in the public domain, reinforcing the argument that such information should be accessible and transparent.

4. Role and Decisions of the State Information Commission and Central Information Commission:
The State Information Commission initially rejected the appellant's request, citing Section 8(1)(j). However, the court found that the Central Information Commission had directed the disclosure of IAS officers' asset details, indicating a shift towards greater transparency. The court criticized the learned Judge for not considering the Central Information Commission's directions due to the absence of the order copy, emphasizing the need to recognize such directives to ensure transparency.

5. Impact of Subsequent Government Circulars and Events on the Disclosure of Information:
The court acknowledged the subsequent government circular that mandated the disclosure of IAS officers' asset details on the website, making the information publicly accessible. The court reasoned that this development negates the argument that the information is confidential and supports the appellant's right to access the information. The court concluded that the appellant's request for inspection of asset details should be granted, provided the request specifies the individual officer by name.

Conclusion:
The court ordered that the appellant is entitled to inspect the asset details of IAS officers, provided the request is made with reference to specific officers. The court emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability in governance, rejecting the contention that such information is confidential and cannot be disclosed. The writ appeal was ordered accordingly, with no costs.

← Previous Next →