Appellant: His wife had given false affidavit that she is unemployed & he has been ordered to pay maintenance to her; information about EPF account of his wife needed to contest her claim - CIC: appellant should apply to the concerned Court

Information sought:- The appellant has sought the following information regarding EPF account of Rajashree Chandavar from May 2010 to December 2010, while she was working for Vista Infosystem, Bangalore:-

A. Name of the EPF contributor/Employee

B. Employee Provident Fund Account Number

C. Date and Amount of Employee Provident Fund Contribution done, (for each month, starting from May 2010 to December 2010)

D. Name of the company/employer from which/whom these contributions have been done.

E. Designation of the employee Rajashree Chandavar.

F. Date of leaving/last working day at Vista Infosystem (Employer).

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

The CPIO has denied the information under Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; & (j) of RTI Act.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present

Appellant: Mr. Mohankumar T. Borkar through VC

Respondent: Mr. K Ramesh CAPIO through VC

The appellant stated that Ms. Rajashree Chandavar had given false affidavit in the Court stating that she is not employed and he has been ordered to pay maintenance to her and he needs the information as requested in his RTI application dated 15/02/2013 to contest her claim. The CAPIO stated that the information relates to third party and they had carried out the process as outlined under Section 11 of the RTI Act but the subscriber has objected to the disclosure. He argued that the information is personal in nature and in the absence of any public purpose, exempt under Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; & (j) of the RTI Act.

Decision notice:

It is seen that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide it decision dated 1/7/2009 [W.P.(C) 803/2009 Vijay Prakash vs. UOI and others] has held that in a private dispute, between husband and wife, 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. cannot be lifted or disturbed unless the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in ‘public interest’. The appellant has pleaded that the information is required by him to contest the allegedly false affidavit filed by his estranged wife. If that be so, the appropriate remedy available to the appellant would be to apply to the concerned Court for summoning the records of the EPFO but seeking such information under the provisions of Right to Information Act is certainly not an appropriate relief. In the matter at hand the appellant has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought is for larger public purpose. It being so, there is no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent. The matter is closed.

BASANT SETH

Information Commissioner

Citation: Mr. Mohankumar T. Borkar v. EPFO in File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/002439/6177