Can personal details of BSNL subscriber be disclosed under RTI?
7 Mar, 2013Background
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) seeking the details regarding a particular mobile connection, such as, the application submitted to obtained the mobile connection, copy of the residential proof attached with the application, the inspection report along with the name of the officer who inspected and verified the address and the copy of the plan under which the said mobile connection was issued. The Public Information Officer (PIO) 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 holding it as personal information.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that the information relates to a third party subscriber who has declined to give his consent for disclosure and hence exemption has been claimed 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 information is disclosable under larger public interest as he has some tangible evidence to prove that the subscriber has given three addresses of which two are bogus and added that an FIR has also been lodged against him for fraud. He further stated that had the FAA given him an opportunity of hearing, he would have produced tangible evidence before him in support of his contention.
View of CIC
The Commission sent the case back to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) with a direction to give a personal hearing to the appellant and the third party. The CIC directed the FAA to examine the evidence as to whether it shows larger public interest to justify the disclosure and thereafter take an appropriate decision in the matter.
Citation: Mr. V. B. Khanna v. Addl. GM (HR) BSNL in File No.CIC/BS/A/2012/000024/1928
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2013/CIC/1099
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission