Copy of marriage certificate of a certain employee was denied claiming that being personal information, it is exempt u/s 8(1)(j) - FAA upheld the decision of PIO - CIC: the appeal disposed observing that the approach of the respondent is as per RTI Act
1. The appellant filed two RTI applications on 12.12.2011 and 20.04.2012 seeking information pertaining to compassionate appointment and copy of marriage certificate of a certain employee.
2. The PIO responded on 02.01.2012 and 02/05/2012 and denied information to the appellant on the RTI application of 02.05.2012 being the sought information was in the nature of personal information under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. The appellant filed a first appeal on 01.06.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 27.06.2012 and upheld the decision of CPIO. The appellant filed a second appeal on 01.10.2012 with the Commission.
3. The respondent participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The respondent while referring to the RTI application of 12.12.2011 stated that the appellant was seeking information about the marriage certificate of an employee of NABARD.
5. The respondent stated that the information was obviously personal and it was, therefore, denied 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. of the RTI Act. The respondent further explained that the appellant in his RTI application had not given any reason why he was seeking this information. The respondent stated that there was no public interest in this and, further, that this was personal information. The respondent stated that in this background this matter should now be allowed to be closed.
6. The appellant did not participate in the hearing.
7. The approach of the respondent is in conformity with the RTI Act
8. The order of the first appellate authority is upheld. Commission's intervention is not required in the matter. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri Ram Basappa Bhutnal v. N.A.B.A.R.D in Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2012/001757/05264