Appellant: needs the information to prove criminal charges against his wife under IPC Sections 406, 420, 120(b), 384 & 497 in the court of law - CIC: a private dispute between husband and his estranged wife cannot be equated with public purpose
26 May, 2014Information sought:
The applicant wants the photocopy of the following:-
1. Provide the photocopies of all documents related to the decision of closing the case as per the complaint against the BSNL employee Mrs. Nisha Sharma (Miss Nisha Chaubey before marriage) Sr TOA, GI Admn, CE (Civil), MP Zone, Bhopal.
2. Provide the photocopy of the competent authority decision in detail which includes statement/remarks/order/note pertains to the complaint.
3. Photocopy of all the documents as submitted by Mrs. Nisha Sharma (Miss Nisha Chaubey before marriage) against my complaint.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has denied the information 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. of the RTI Act 2005.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Alok Sharma through VC
Respondent: Mr. R P Ahirwar CPIO’s representative through VC
The appellant stated that he had lodged a complaint against Mrs. Nisha Sharma (Km. Nisha Coubey) and needs the information requested in his RTI application dated 15/12/2012 to prove charges against her under IPC Sections 406, 420, 120(b), 384 & 497 in the court of law. He also submitted that the respondents should reopen/reinvestigate the closed vigilance case against the aforesaid BSNL employee absolving her from false prosecution and criminal harassment under Section 498(A) in a domestic violence case running in the Session Court, Bhopal. He claimed that there is public interest as the employee is of criminal nature and the information is needed to prove her criminal acts before the CBI, Bhopal police, NHRC and other relevant authorities so that many innocent boys are protected from traps laid by such scheming persons. The CPIO’s representative stated that the allegations made by the appellant have not been found to be sustainable and the case has been closed with the approval of the competent authority. The appellant argued that there are a number of CIC decisions which hold that the information relating to a legally wedded spouse cannot be denied treating her third party and since the respondent have closed the case he needs all the documents relating to his complaint. He further stated that once the case is closed all the documents have to be in public domain. The CPIO’s representative stated that there is no such provision in the CVC manual and the information relating to a third party, the disclosure of which has been objected to, can be provided only in larger public interest. The appellant contested stating that the information relating to a public servant generated by a public authority cannot be treated as third party. He further stated that the enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with the CVC guidelines and he wants the documents to contest the matter before the appropriate court.
Decision notice:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide decision dated 03/10/2012 Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. CIC & others [SLP (Civil) No.27734 of 2012] has held that disciplinary orders and the documents in the course of disciplinary proceedings and 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 activities or interest. On the other hand the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual unless the petitioner is able to demonstrate that the information sought is for larger public purpose. In the matter at hand the appellant has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought is for larger public purpose. A private dispute between husband and his estranged wife cannot be equated with public purpose. It being so, the information is exempt 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. of the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Alok Sharma v. BSNL in File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/000828/5095