Copies of first stage advice received from the CVC regarding a vigilance case, file notings, IO/PO report, letter sent to the CVC for second stage advice etc. was denied u/s 8(1)(j) - Appellant argued that he is the complainant - CIC: denial upheld
19 Sep, 2014Information sought: The appellant has sought the following information:-
1. Present status of the vigilance cases pending against Sri S N Pande. Photocopies of internal note sheets may be provided indicating process to have taken place after report of IO/PO and up to date of your sending the reply.
2. Photocopy of IO/PO’s report.
3. If matter has been sent to Central Vigilance Commission for 2nd stage advice. Photocopy of reply or advice received may be provided.
4. Photocopy of 1st stage advice received from Central Vigilance Commission may be provided.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has not given satisfactory information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant: Mr. K. S. Jain on telephone no. 09341264411;
Respondent: Mr. H S Rawat, APIO;
The appellant stated that he wants copies of
(i) file notings
(ii) IO/PO report
(iii) letter sent to the CVC for second stage advice and
(iv) first stage advice received from the CVC regarding vigilance case against Shri S N Pande.
The APIO stated that the information sought relates to third party and 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 as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande’s matter. The appellant argued that he is the complainant and the Supreme Court’s order is not applicable in the instant case. The CPIO contested stating that though the appellant is the complainant he is seeking information relating to Mr. S. N. Pande who is a third party and hence, the ratio of the Supreme Court’s order is squarely applicable to the matter at hand.
Decision notice:
It is seen that a Coordinate Bench of the Commission in a similar matter vide its decision dated 26/06/2013 [file no. CIC/SM/A/2013/000058 Manoj Arya vs. Cabinet Secretariat] has held as under:
“4. We have carefully gone through the contents of the RTI application and the order of the Appellate Authority. We have also considered the submissions of both the respondent and the third party in the case. The entire information sought by the Appellant revolves around the complaints made against an officer of the government and any possible action the authorities might have taken on those complaints. The Appellate Authority was very right in deciding that this entire class of information was qualified as personal information within the meaning of the provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. In this connection, it is very pertinent to cite the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 (Girish R Deshpande vs CIC and others) in which it has held that “the performance of an employee/Officer in an organisation 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 activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual” The Supreme Court further held that such information could be disclosed only if it would serve a larger public interest. The information sought by the Appellant in this case is about some complaints made against a government official and any possible action the authorities might have taken on those complaints. It is, thus, clearly the kind of information which is envisaged in the above Supreme Court order. Therefore, the information is completely exempted from disclosure under the provisions of the RTI Act which both the CPIO and the Appellate Authority have rightly cited in their respective orders.”
As per the ratio of the above cited decision information relating to complaints against public servants and action taken thereon 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 unless larger public purpose is demonstrated by the appellant. In the matter at hand the appellant has not established that the information sought is for larger public purpose. Hence, it need not be disclosed. The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. K. S. Jain v. BSNL in File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/001543/5763