Certified copy of report against the Ex LIC of India Chairman submitted by CBI & action taken over the said report was denied u/s 8(1)(j) - Appellant: disclosure needed to rule out any corrupt practice prevailing in the LIC - CIC: denial upheld
24 Mar, 2014Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri N. Saini, has submitted RTI application dated 21 November 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai; seeking information relating to the report submitted by CBI to the LIC of India/Govt. of India and action taken on that in reference to the news published in daily news paper “Punjab Kesri” on 01.08.2011.
2. Vide order dated 19 December 2012, CPIO denied the information on the ground that the information sought in the RTI application is confidential in nature and ordinarily falls under “personal information” category and is, therefore, exempted 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, 2005. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 29 December 2012, to the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Vide order dated 21 January 2013, the FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision.
3. Being aggrieved and not satisfied by the above response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard today via videoconferencing. The appellant, Shri N. Saini, made submissions from Bhopal. The respondents, Ms. Mallika Prasad, Secretary, CPIO and Shri G S Bhagwat, FAA were present and made submissions from Mumbai.
5. The appellant had sought certified copy of report against the ExLIC of India Chairman as submitted by the CBI to the LIC of India/Government of India and action taken over the said report by the public authority. The appellant submitted that the purpose of the disclosure of information was to rule out any corrupt practice prevailing in the LIC of India through RTI Act in pursuant to a Newspaper report.
6. The CPIO submitted that the LIC of India is not the holder of information in the present case as the report against the ExLIC of India Chairman, was prepared by the CBI and it was submitted to the Ministry of Finance and not to the LIC of India. They also added that the Government’s Investigating Agency came to the conclusion that the allegations against Shri T.S. Vijayan were not substantiated by facts and that there was no corruption or fraud involved.
7. Further, vide letter dated 14/12/2012, the CBI has asked the CPIO, LIC of India not to disclose the contents of the report. The CPIO finally submitted that the information sought is ‘personal information’ of the retired employee of the Public authority, who is a third party (a Government of India appointee) and thus attracts 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, 2005. The appellant has been provided a copy of the submissions made by the respondents in the present case.
Decision Notice
8. The Commission has heard the submissions and in view of the position that the investigating agency has asked for nondisclosure of the report and also as the report was not addressed to them and was meant only ‘for information’, the same may not be provided to the RTI applicant under the RTI Act, 2005.
9. The present appeal is dismissed and the case is closed.
(ManjulaPrasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri N. Saini v. LIC of India in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000351/MP