Third party submitted that his second wife & children are his nominee in the bank record from beginning & his personal information should not be disclosed - CIC: Denial of information upheld except for details of monthly remuneration
16 Nov, 2014Facts
This matter pertains to an RTI application filed by the Appellant seeking information regarding the marriage record of and change of name of wife or nominee by a former employee of the Bank, Shri Shaukat Ali Yousuf Ali Sayyed, who retired from the Bank service in February, 2008. The CPIO responded on 24.8.2012 and denied the information 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. 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. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority. In his order dated 4.2.2013, the FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO. The Appellant approached the CIC in second
Appeal on 1.8.2013.
Hearing on 7.7.2014
2. We heard the submissions of the Appellant and the Respondents. The Respondents reiterated the reply already given by them to the Appellant. The Appellant submitted that she is the first wife of Shri Shaukat Ali Yousuf Ali Sayyed, who has contracted a second marriage and changed the name of his nominee in the bank records. She wants to get information regarding his marriage record with the Bank and the record of change of nominee to pursue the matter of maintenance for herself.
3. Having considered the records and the submissions made before us by both the parties, we would like to give an opportunity to the third party in this case (Shri Shaukat Ali Yousuf Ali Sayyed) to make his submissions, if any, before we pass our final order. Accordingly, we will hear this matter again on 8.9.2014 at 2.30 p.m. through video conferencing. The CPIO is directed to forward a copy of this Order at the earliest to Shri Shaukat Ali Yousuf Ali Sayyed and inform him to be present during the next hearing, in case he wishes to make any submissions. The venue for video conferencing for the Appellant, the Respondents and Shri Shaukat Ali Yousuf Ali Sayyed during the hearing on 8.9.2014 at 2.30 p.m. will be as follows:
NIC, SMG, 1st floor, Udyog Bhawan, Ganesh Khind Road,
Near University, Pune 411007
(Contact OfficerMr. Gunasekharan, Scientist C)
andcontact Nos. – 9860478753/ 25610000, Extn. 4114 & 4127)
Hearing on 8.9.2014
4. The matter came up before us again today. Shri Shaukat Ali Yousuf Ali Sayyed submitted that his second wife, Smt. Mohsina Begum Sayyed, along with her son and daughter, is his nominee in the bank record. He further submitted that he has not changed his nominee at any stage in the record of the Bank. In response to our query, he acknowledged that the Appellant, Smt. Rafiya Ali Shah, is his first wife. Shri Shaukat Ali Yousuf Ali Sayyed stated that the information sought by the Appellant is his personal information and should not be disclosed to the Appellant.
5. The Appellant submitted that since Shri Shaukat Ali Yousuf Ali Sayyed was an employee of the Bank, his second marriage was against the relevant Rules for employees like him. In this context, we note that the Commission is not competent to address this issue. The Appellant further submitted that in case the information sought by her contains any personal information, it could be provided to her after applying the severability clause under Section 10 of the RTI Act.
6. We have considered the records and the submissions made by all the parties before us. We note that the Appellant had sought the following information: Complete service record of Shri Shaukat Ali Yousuf Ali Sayyed, his first marriage record, letter written by him to change the name of wife or nominee and the reason given to change the name, his salary record, the PF amount paid to him and loans taken by him since joining the service of the Bank. In the above context, we note the judgment dated 1.7.2009 of the High Court of Delhi in Vijay Prakash Vs. UOI and Ors. [W.P. (C) 803/2009], in which the Court considered a matter in which an Appellant had sought information in respect of his wife’s service records pertaining to all leave application forms submitted by her; attested copies of nomination of DSOP and other official documents with financial implications, and the changes made to them; record of investments made and reflected in the service documents of his wife, along with nominations thereof. The High Court made the following observation in the above judgment:
“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. 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.”
7. In the light of the above observation of the High Court of Delhi, most of the information sought by the Appellant in this case falls in the category of personal information exempt from disclosure 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. 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 Appellant needs the information in connection with a personal dispute between her and Shri Shaukat Ali Yousuf Ali Sayyed. There is, therefore, no larger public interest warranting disclosure of this information. Notwithstanding the above, we note that the Appellant has also sought information regarding the salary record of Shri Shaukat Ali Yousuf Ali Sayyed. In this context, we note that under Section 4(1)(b)(x) of the RTI Act, each Public Authority is required to disclose the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees. In view of the foregoing, the CPIO is directed to inform the Appellant about the gross monthly emoluments of Shri Shaukat Ali Yousuf Ali Sayyed at the time of his retirement, within twenty days of the receipt of this Order, under intimation to the Commission.
8. With the above direction, the Appeal is disposed of.
9. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. The CPIO is directed to forward a copy of this Order to Shri Shaukat Ali Yousuf Ali Sayyed within seven days of the receipt of this order.
(Sharat Sabharwal)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Smt. Rafiya Ali Shah v. Central Bank of India in File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001314/SH