CIC: Appellant was seeking personal information of a third party, who is a junior colleague in his office, solely for the purpose of redressing his grievance regarding promotion vis-à-vis her promotion, apparently given to her earlier; Exempt u/s 8(1)(j)
25 Oct, 2021Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information related to Smt. K. Parvathy, Sr. AO:
1. Date of appointment, designation and division in which posted.
2. Date of joining as JAO on deputation at DOT Mumbai.
3. Date on which the official reverted back to her parent unit after completion of deputation period as Postal Assistant.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information intentionally and malafidely by quoting Sec. 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.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
In the second appeal, the appellant reiterated his earlier submissions and requested for attested copies of the documents which are available in the service book and for action to be taken against the erring officials for denying the information.
He also sent written submissions dated 08.09.2021 to the Commission stating that since he was infected with corona virus, he would not be able to attend the hearing. Therefore, his written submissions should be taken into account while considering his case. He explained that he needs the information as he and the third party were working in the same office and are from the same cadre and though she is junior in the gradation list, she got promoted earlier to him. Hence he desires the information to make a representation to the higher authorities to settle the anomaly.
The CPIO had provided a reply informing the appellant that the information sought is covered under Sec. 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 as it is personal information of the third party and the said third party has also not given consent for sharing the said information. The FAA also concurred with the reply of the CPIO. In the written submissions dated 14.09.2021, the CPIO from DoT, Chennai reiterated the earlier reply given and further stated that there is no larger public interest brought out by the appellant to lift the exemption.
Observations:
From a perusal of the record of the case, it is apparent that the appellant was indeed seeking personal information of a third party, who is a colleague in his office, solely for the purpose of redressing his grievance regarding promotion vis-à-vis her promotion, apparently given to her earlier to him though she is junior.
The Commission notes that this is an administrative matter which should be taken up separately with the organization. The information sought is covered under the exemption contained in Sec 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 and on this ground and the fact that the third party has refused her personal information to be shared, the CPIO rightly rejected providing the information. The Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO. No further action lies.
Decision:
In view of the above, no further action is required in this matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: A Nelson Koildoss v. Department of Telecommunications in File No. CIC/DOTEL/A/2020/661871, Date of Decision: 22/09/2021