Several RTI applications seeking information relating to a BSNL employee was sought - CIC: the appellant’s allegations against his estranged wife of criminal activity demonstrate his personal bias rather than any public purpose warranting disclosure
8 Jun, 2014Information sought:
The applicant has sought the following information/documents related to BSNL employee Mrs. Nisha Sharma (Kum. Nisha Sharma Chaubey before Marriage) Sr TOA, GI ADMN, CE(Civil), MP Zone, Bhopal from 01/12/2000 to 18/12/2012:-
(1) Pay scale details complete with break ups.
(2) Details of promotions, charge-sheets and department enquiries on her.
(3) With reference to “BSNL CONDUCT DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL RULES, 2006” guidelines, following information & documents copies are required:-
3(a) Rule 14:- Details of the gifts and articles from relatives, friends received on her marriage as declared by her to BSNL.
3(b) Rule 16:- Declaration given by her that she has not given dowry in her marriage & the signed declaration from the parties that the dowry was not involved in the marriage.
3(c) Copies of the following Asset Declaration Forms (Yearwise)
(i) Form – 1:- Prior intimation or seeking previous sanction in respect of acquisition/disposal of immovable/moveable property.
(ii) Form 2:- Report/application for permission to prescribed authority for the buildings or addition to a house.
(iii) Form 3:- Report to the prescribed authority after completion of building/extension of a house.
(iv) Form 4:- Statement of annual return of immovable property.
(v) Form 5:- Valuation report.
(vi) Form 6:- Application for permission to PSE executives to accept commercial employment within a period of two years after retirement.
(vii)Form A1:- to be filled by BSNL employee about family details on first appointment. (viii)Annexure-I:- Extract from Indian Companies Act, 1956.
(ix)Form A2:- For BSNL employee in respect of dependent status on first appointment.
(x)Form A3:- For BSNL employee on first appointment for nomination in respect of gratuity/leave encashment & other admissible claims on retirement/death.
(xi)Form A4:- Statement of moveable property on first appointment.
(xii)Form A5:- Statement of immovable property on first appointment.
(xiii)Form A6:- Statement of liquid assets on first on first appointment.
(xiv)Form A7:- Statement showing life insurance policy/policies on first appointment.
(xv)Form A8:- Statements of debits & other liabilities on first appointment.
(4) Photocopy of her marriage declaration along with its is proof as given by her.
(5) Photocopy of the documents submitted by her as to entitle her husband for various benefits as given to spouse of a BSNL employee.
(6) Photocopy of her application regarding change of her status from Miss Nisha Chaubey to Mrs. Nisha Sharma.
(7) Photocopy of her application about her willingness of transfer from Bhopal to Jaipur.
(8) Photocopy of all relevant documents of the action taken by competent authority regarding her transfer application.
(9) Photocopy of application/information submitted by her for doing MBA as private candidate from ICFAI University. Photocopy of her application regarding cancellation of her transfer from Bhopal to Jaipur.
(10) Photocopy of all relevant documents for confirmation of her in BSNL.
(11) Photocopy of her
(a) Service record (complete)
(b) Medical report at the time of appointment.
(c) Confidential reports.
(d) Attendance / Muster sheet.
(e) Medical Card.
(f) Identity Card.
(g) Medical reports of her illness from the doctor along with claimed medical bills.
(h) Income Tax Returns.
(i) reports which gives an information about her physical, mental and psychological status.
(12) Details of her SIMs/Telephone numbers used by her (purchased personally and/or given officially)
(13) Details of her E-mail ID as submitted by her at respective office.
(14) Details of her residential address (a) Permanent (b) Temporary.
(15) Details of her complete leave records (including casual leave, earned leave, medical leave, study leave, extra-ordinary leave etc.) so as to provide information as:-
(16) Her office address during service.
(17) Summary of her annual income along with deductions. Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has not provided the information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant:
Mr. Alok Sharma through VC
Respondent: Mr. Milan Kulshreshta CPIO’s representative through VC
The CPIO’s representative informed that the appellant has requested for huge and voluminous information of personal nature relating to an employee and they had carried out the process as outlined under Section 11 of the RTI Act but the employee has objected to the disclosure claiming that the appellant had tortured her for dowry and a criminal case is pending in Bhopal Court. The employee has also contended that she has been a victim of domestic violence and the appellant is a threat to her physical safety and has caused her mental harassment. The appellant argued that the case in the Bhopal court has gone in his favour and hence the CPIO should be directed to explain whether the issue involves public interest or not. The CPIO’s representative responded by stating that the employees has given another letter dated 19/1/2013 stating that the information is of personal nature, does not involve any public activity or interest and would cause unwarranted invasion of her privacy and hence, 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. He added that the employee has also strongly objected to all the points contending that the appellant, who asserts himself to be her husband, has criminal intent and has claimed exemption 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; 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; 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; 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; of the RTI Act.
The CPIO’s representative stated that he strongly agrees with the employee that there is a threat to her safety and no public interest is involved. The appellant stated that Section 11 is only a process and is not the last word and does not give the third party unrestrained veto to refuse the disclosure of the information and hence the CPIO should give his decision in the matter. The CPIO’s representative stated that both he and the appellate authority have concurred with the third party that the information is personal in nature and cannot be disclosed in the absence of public interest. The appellant contested stating that the respondents have blindly relied on the third party without applying their mind. He further argued that the CPIO is also required to justify how he came to the conclusion that Section 8 or 9 is applicable for the denial. The appellant submitted that the CPIO has completely ignored the fact Type of leave availed Date of leave Sanctioned authority - name/designation, Purpose of leave, (exact) Address during the period of leave, Proof of address leave as submitted by employee. He is the legally wedded husband of the employee and hence, no third party is involved. He contended that there are number of CIC decisions where the spouse has not been treated as a third party and he is seeking information on complaints lodged by him against his wife alleging criminal activity and owning of assets disproportionate to her known sources of income. He alleged that the respondents have not investigated his complaints as per the CVC guidelines. In support of his contention, the appellant quoted CIC decision dated 07/01/2014 (CIC/AD/A/2012/003341-SA). Decision notice: It is seen that the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in its decision dated 16/08/2007 (Spl. Civil Appln. Nos.16073&17067 of 2007 Reliance Industry Ltd v/s Gujrat State Information Commission) has held as under:
“13. What satisfaction must be arrived at prior to disclosure of information about third party? Looking to the provisions of the Act especially Section 8(d), 8(j) and proviso to Section 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: and looking to the process of disclosing information to the applicant 'relating to or supplied by the third party and treated as confidential by the third party', the Act imposes a duty upon Public Information Officer to arrive at a conclusion that public interest in disclosure outweighs harm or injury, to the protected interest of such third party, or larger public interest warrants, disclosure of such information. In considering whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interest of such third party, the Public Information Officer will have to consider the following:
(i) The objections raised by the third party by claiming confidentiality in respect of the Information sought for.
(ii) Whether the Information is being sought by the applicant in larger public interest or to wreak vendetta against the third party. In deciding the profile of person seeking information and his credentials will have to be looked into. If the profile of the person seeking Information, in light of other attending circumstances, leads to the construction that under the pretext of serving public interest, such person is aiming to settle personal score against the third party, it cannot be said that public interest warrants disclosure of the information solicited.
(iii) The Public Information Officer, while dealing with the information relating to or supplied by the third party, has to constantly bear in mind that the Act does not become a tool in the hands of a busy body to settle a personal score.”
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide its decision dated 1/7/2009 (W.P. (C) 803/2009 Ved Prakash vs. UOI & others) has held as under:
“23. As discussed earlier, the “public interest” argument of the Petitioner is premised on the plea that his wife is a public servant; he is in litigation with her, and requires information, - in the course of a private dispute – to establish the truth of his allegations. The CIC has held that there is no public interest element in the disclosure of such personal information, in the possession of the information provider, i.e. the Indian Air Force. This court concurs with the view, on an application of the principles discussed. The petitioner has, not been able to justify how such disclosure would be in “public interest”: the litigation is, pure and simple, a private one. The basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption (from disclosure) enacted 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. cannot be lifted or disturbed.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide decision dated 13/12/20012 Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Sayyed Hussain Abbas Rizvi & Anr [Civil appeal No. 9052 of 2012] has held that clause 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; 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; 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; 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; can come into play with any kind of relationship. It requires that where the disclosure of such information 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 purpose, the information need not be provided. In other words if in the opinion of the concerned authority there is danger to life or possibility of danger to physical safety, the CPIO would be entitled to bring such case within the exemption of 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; 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; 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; 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; of the RTI Act. The Commission notes that the appellant has filed several RTI applications with the BSNL seeking various information relating to Mrs. Nisha Sharma (Kum. Nisha Choubey) with whom he appears to have a matrimonial dispute and in response to communications to her by the CPIO under Section 11 of the RTI Act, she has objected to the disclosure stating that the information is of personal nature, does not involve any public activity or interest and would cause unwarranted invasion of her privacy. She has also contended that the appellant, who asserts himself to be her husband, has criminal intent and there is a threat to her physical safety, she has claimed exemption 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; 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; 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; 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; of the RTI Act. In the facts and circumstances of the matter at hand the appellant’s allegations against his estranged wife of criminal activity, owning assets disproportionate to her known sources of income, etc only demonstrate his personal bias rather than any public purpose warranting denial of statutory exemption as available to the respondent. It being so, we hold that the information sought is exempt 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; 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; 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; 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; , & (j) of the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Alok Sharma v. BSNL in File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/001026/510