2014 (12) TMI 1429 - HC - Indian Laws

Direction that records of reimbursement of medical bills of judges of the Supreme Court (whether serving or retired) be maintained separately for each judge so as to ensure that the summary of such expenses for each judge are available separately - HELD THAT - The impugned order indicates that the CIC proceeded on the basis that the citizens can always seek the copies of the medical bills of individual judges and find out the same information. Therefore it is better that the public authority should maintain such records in a manner that it should be possible to find out the details of expenditure in each individual case. Or else the CPIO would be constrained to make photocopies of all such bills and provide to the information seeker an exercise both more cumbersome and expensive. Clearly this assumption is erroneous as medical records are not liable to be disclosed unless it is shown that the same is in larger public interest. In the present case the CIC has completely overlooked this aspect of the matter. Further the extent of medical reimbursement to an individual is also in one sense personal information as it would disclose the extent of medical services availed by an individual. Thus unless a larger public interest is shown to be served there is no necessity for providing such information. Thus clearly a direction for maintaining records in a manner so as to provide such information is not warranted. The basic financial data can be accessed to generate innumerable reports depending on the exigencies and requirements of an organization. A direction by the CIC to maintain such records to generate reports merely because an individual information seeker has sought such information is not warranted as the same would multiply with each information seeker seeking information in different form. A direction to maintain records in a particular manner must be occasioned by considerations of public interest which is admittedly absent in this case. The petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

Summary

Issues:
Impugned order directing separate maintenance of medical reimbursement records for judges of the Supreme Court.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order by the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing separate maintenance of medical reimbursement records for judges of the Supreme Court. The respondent sought details of medical expenses of judges and their families, which was rejected citing exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The CIC directed the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to provide the total amount of medical expenses reimbursed and to maintain judge-wise information separately. The petitioner argued that the Act does not require public authorities to create new information for RTI applicants and that the impugned order interferes with the Supreme Court's power to make rules under Article 145 of the Constitution.

The respondent contended that public authorities should maintain information transparently to fulfill the Act's purpose. The CIC's order was challenged on grounds of invasion of privacy, as medical records are considered personal information exempt from disclosure. The CIC's power under Section 19(8)(a)(iv) of the Act is to ensure compliance with Section 4(1)(a) regarding record maintenance for facilitating right to information. Since medical records are excluded under Section 8(1) of the Act, directions for their maintenance are not warranted. The CIC's assumption that citizens can seek medical bills overlooks privacy concerns and the absence of larger public interest justifying disclosure.

The judgment emphasized that financial information sought by the respondent is available in financial records, and disclosure could be required in cases of larger public interest. The CIC's direction to maintain records for individual information seekers was deemed unnecessary without public interest considerations. The decision highlighted that maintaining records for generating reports should be based on public interest, which was lacking in this case. As the impugned order solely focused on record maintenance, other contentions were not examined, and the petition was allowed, setting aside the order.