Information about the rehabilitation of sex workers was sought – part information was provided rest denied u/s 8(1)(g) and (j) – CIC: action taken by the respondent was in conformity with the RTI Act, appeal rejected
O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 27.8.2012 seeking information about the rehabilitation of sex workers working in G.B. Road area. In all, information has been sought on 7 points. The CPIO responded pointwise on 4.10.2012.
2. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 3.12.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA upheld the reply of CPIO on 15.1.2013. The appellant approached the Commission on 19.3.2013 in second appeal.
3. The respondent participated in the hearing and stated that this matter essentially pertains to the rehabilitation of those rescued from women trafficking.
4. The respondent stated that whatever information was available with them pertaining to the numbers, that was provided, but they denied information about the personal details under section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; and 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. In respect of the rehabilitation scheme, the respondent stated that they explained to the appellant that this pertained to the Department of Woman & Child Development of the State Government.
5. It is obvious from the above that the information denied is covered by the exemption from disclosure clauses of the RTI Act. The action taken by the respondent was in conformity with the RTI Act.
6. Intervention of the Commission is not required in the matter. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
Citation: Shri Gopal Kansara v. Delhi Police in Decision No. CIC/SS/A/2013/001114/VS/05793