RIGHT TO INFORMATION: PERSONAL DETAILS CAN BE PROVIDED ONLY IF IT IS IN LARGER PUBLIC INTEREST.

[C.A. DEV KUMAR KOTHARI]

Relevant LINKS AND REFERENCES.

The Right to Information Act.

Girish Ramchandra Deshpande  v. Central Information Commissioner  2012 (10) TMI 218 - SUPREME COURT

Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others 2011 (8) TMI 538 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Right to Information under the /right to Information Act (RTI) is considered as an effective and handy tool to get information about certain details about functioning of government department and public sector organizations. The readers are generally aware of broad provisions in this regard, therefore a detailed discussion is not made in this write-up, and rather focus is placed on recent ruling of the Supreme Court.

In the case reported as Girish Ramchandra Deshpande  v. Central Information Commissioner  2012 (10) TMI 218 - SUPREME COURT the petitioner had sought copies of memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent, who was earlier  employed as an Enforcement Officer in Sub-Regional Office, Akola, and is now working in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 

Certain  information related with employment were sought under RTI Act from his employer that is the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner besides details of his investments, lendings, borrowing, gifts received movable and immovable properties were also sought.

The information sought for usually finds a place in the income tax returns.

(per author: the employer may or may not be fully aware of many of  these aspects, as it depends on requirement of disclosure to the employer).

 The question considered by the Supreme Court was whether the above-mentioned information sought for qualified to be "personal information" as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Considering the nature of information sought and situation in which the same were sought the Supreme Court dismissed the petition holding that the information sought were personal information. In this regard the Supreme Court observed and held as follows:

The information sought were personal information and could not be made available to the petitioner for the following reasons;

1)  About employment related information - the performance of an employee or other officer  in an organization is primarily a matter between the employer and the employee, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest;  Therefore  the details called for by the petitioner, i.e., copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. were qualified to be 'personal information' which were exempted from disclosure;

2) The details disclosed by a person in his income tax return (that is about income, assets, liabilities, capital receipts like gifts etc) were also "personal information" and thus exempted from disclosure;

Reasoning: the disclosure of personal information could cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual.

When disclosure is possible:

The Supreme Court also held that, the disclosure of such personal information is possible only if the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.  

Confirming the findings of lower court and authorities the Supreme court found that the petitioner had not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for was for the larger public interest

Therefore, SLP filed by petitioner was dismissed.

The following portion from the Supreme courts judgment is analysed by way of highlighting:

12. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the above-mentioned information sought for qualifies to be "personal information" as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.  taxmanagementindia.com

From the judgment of the Supreme Court;

13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.

14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.

15. The petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Weaknesses of the case:

From reading of the judgment it is apparent that the petitioner wanted even personal information as a matter of right and he could not made out a case of larger public interest justifying disclosure of even personal information in larger public interest. The Supreme Court also observed that the appropriate authority can make disclosure of personal information, if it is required under larger public interest.

It appears that what is larger public interest is to be decided by the appropriate authority and that is again a matter of discretion and litigation.

Girish Ramchandra Deshpande  v. Central Information Commissioner  2012 (10) TMI 218 - SUPREME COURT