Can copy of documents be sought in vigilance cases citing ‘public interest’?
10 Jun, 2013Background
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Posts (DoP) seeking copy of Departmental charge-sheet issued to two people in relation to KVP Embezzlement at Medical College Post Office. He also sought the copy of departmental order disposing the charge sheet of one individual. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that the third party has declined to give his consent for the disclosure of the information and hence the same was 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 appellant argued that the accused is involved in a huge fraud of Rs. 3 crores and the entire process of disciplinary proceedings against him has been concluded. He has also been held guilty and hence the information is disclosable in larger public interest. The PIO further stated that the appellant himself is involved in the aforesaid fraud and is only trying to obtain advantage for himself by seeking third party information and hence he does not see any larger public interest in disclosing the information to him. He added that the appellant is litigating his matter before the Honourable High Court and he can seek access to any information which he needs for his defense through the Court and not through the RTI Act as it may amount to interference in the Court’s discretion.
View of CIC
The Commission referred to an earlier decision of Supreme Court [Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr.- Link : http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/BiharPublicServiceCommission-v-SaiyedHussainAbbasRizwiDec20121358759307.pdf] wherein it was held that the expression ‘public interest’ has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression ‘public interest’, like ‘public purpose’, is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs. [State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (AIR 1952 SC 252)]. It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recommendation and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black’s Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)]. The CIC ruled that the appellant wanted the information for his own benefit and not for the welfare of the public at large and hence this would not be an appropriate case for the Commission to override the statutory exemption provided 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.
Citation: Mr. Ramesh Chandra Dixit v. Department of Posts in File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/000172/2394
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2013/CIC/1347
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission