Appellant: A criminal case is pending against the third party in a Criminal Court in Delhi and this information was essential to prove his case against the third party - CIC: No larger public interest angle involved in the disclosure of this information
3 May, 2017Date of hearing : 19.04.2017
Information sought:
The appellant had sought a copy of Form 16 in respect of Sh. Anil Kumar Rajpal.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information
Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : APIO, Shri N.K. Gupta, AFA
During the hearing the respondent APIO reiterated the CPIO’s reply and the FAA’s order, stating that the sought for information is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. Hence, the same cannot be provided.
The appellant submitted that a criminal case against the third party is pending in a Criminal Court in Delhi and this information was essential to prove his case against the third party in that case. The information was also required by him as it had a significant public interest angle involved and disclosure of this information should be allowed in the larger public interest.
On perusal of the case record and on the basis of submission of both the parties, the Commission found no larger public interest angle involved in the disclosure of this information. Though there is a criminal case pending, the appellant cannot claim the information as a matter of right, unless a larger public interest angle is proved to be involved. However, the respective court can very well summon the required documents if required during the relevant court case.
The argument of the respondent CPIO and FAA that the sought for information is covered under the exemption clause u/s 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act is in accordance with the provision of the RTI Act and the appellant failed to provide any cogent evidence to show that there is larger public interest involved in the disclosure of the information.
Reliance may be put on the Apex Court decision in the matter of Girish Ramachandra Deshpande Vs CIC & Ors, where it was held as follows:
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) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act.
16. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition. Hence, the same is dismissed.
In light of the above judicial dicta, and based on the facts the Commission finds no infirmity in the CPIO’s reply or the FAA’s order. The appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya]
Information Commissioner
Citation: Ashwani Kumar v. Dy. CAO/G cum CPIO Accounts Northern Railway in File No : CIC/VS/A/2015/001519-AB