CIC: Seeking information about a girl student who passed out of school thirty years ago and giving replies in contradictory manner about relationship with the said student reflects sinister motives of the appellant; denial of information upheld
1. Appellant is not present. Dr. M. P. Yadav and Mr. Sulakshana Solanki represent Public authority.
2. Appellant through his RTI application sought to know how many girls are studying in arts stream, copy of Transfer Certificate for 6th & 8th class of Ms. Usha Kumari etc. PIO replied point wise. Claiming non-satisfaction appellant filed first and second appeals.
Proceedings Before the Commission:
3. Officer representing public authority submitted that appellant was seeking information of Ms. Usha Kumari who passed out thirty years ago from the school in 1985. He claimed before the Principal that he is her brother. He had also asked about detailed information including their TC and DoB etc of several students. School authority refused to disclose the information, as that being personal information of the girl students. Then another person by name Mr. Sunil Kumar had filed a letter requesting personal information including duplicate T.C. of Ms. Usha Kumari. The person who claimed to be her husband had filed RTI application one month before her marriage. The facts came before the Commission raised lot of suspicions and possibility of misuse of personal information of a girl student. The application for information has to be rejected as exempted under Section 8(1) (j) as the appellant could not show any public interest. Seeking information about a girl student who passed out of school thirty years ago, the school leaving certificate, giving replies in contradictory manner about relationship with Ms Usha Kumari reflect sinister motives of the appellant. Applying 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. and 8(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. the information sought by appellants cannot be given. The school authorities presented to the Commission possibility of misuse, hence appeal is rejected.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Citation: Brij Mohan v. Deputy Director of Education (HQ) in Case No. CIC/SA/A/2015/000259