CIC: The assets & liabilities of an employee, which he discloses to his employer in compliance of the Service Rules applicable to him, qualifies as personal information - CIC advised the IT Deptt to consider publishing the IT Act in Telugu Language

O R D E R

Facts

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding the assets disclosed by officers and staff in the Respondent’s office for the year 2015-16, copy of 4 (1) (23) manual in Telugu Language, IT Act in Tamil language, etc. The CPIO vide its letter dated 31.10.2016 provided a point wise response to the Appellant informing him that point 01 of his application was forwarded to the Pr. CIT, Tirupati Charge, Tirupati. As regards point no. 02, it was stated that the information sought was vague. With regard to point no. 03, it was stated that the Act had not been printed in Telugu Language. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 05.01.2017 while concurring with the response of the CPIO on points 02 and 03 stated that the O/o the Pr. CCIT, AP and Telangana vide its letter dated 09.12.2016 had replied on point no. 01 of the RTI application.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present: Appellant: Mr. Ravuri Ramesh Babu through VC; Respondent: Mr. D. J. P. Anand, JCIT, Nellore Range through VC;

The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that satisfactory information had not been received. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that the Income Tax Act had not been published in Telugu and therefore furnishing information in this respect was not possible. The Appellant however, insisted and emphasized that in the larger public interest, the IT Act and Section 4(1) (b) declaration should be translated and made available in Telugu Language. It was noted that the information sought in point no. 01 had been denied 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, 2005.

With regard to point no. 01, the Commission referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:

“13......The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.”

Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of of Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam, Civil Appeal No. 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. of 2009 dated 31.08.2017 had held as under:

“5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc

11) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of the Act.

12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794, 5 it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.

14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature; secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1.”

In W.P.(C) 1191/2012 in the matter of Allahabad Bank v. Gyanender Kumar Shukla, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated 09.07.2013 had held as under:

“4.The question whether information with respect to the assets and liabilities of an employee 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. 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 Act or not came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Cen. Information Commr. and Ors. (2013) 1 SCC 212. In the case before the Supreme Court, the Commission had denied details of the assets and liabilities, movable and immovable property of an employee on the ground that the information sought qualified to be „personal information;, as defined in Clause (j) of Section 8 (1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Commission, the appellant before the Supreme Court, preferred a writ petition which came to be dismissed by the Single Judge. An appeal preferred by him was also dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court. Being aggrieved form the order passed by the Division Bench, he approached the Apex Court by way of Special Leave. Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Apex Court, inter alia, held as under:-

“…14.The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under Clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.”

5. It would, thus, be seen that the information with respect to the assets and liabilities of an employee, which he discloses to his employer in compliance of the Service Rules applicable to him qualifies as personal information within the meaning of 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 Act and such information cannot be directed to be disclosed unless the CPIO/PIO/Appellate Authority is satisfied that larger public interest justifies disclosure of such information. It goes without saying that such satisfaction needs to be recorded in writing before an order directing disclosure of the information can be passed. A perusal of the impugned orders would show that in neither of these cases, the Commission was satisfied that larger public interest justified disclosure of the information sought by the applicant/respondent. Without being satisfied that larger public interest justified disclosure of the information sought in this regard, the Commission could not have passed an order directing disclosure of information of this nature...”

The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Municipal Corporation Delhi vs. Rajbir W.P.(C) 13219/2009 and CM 14393/2009, decided on 24.08.2017 had held as under:

“9..................Respondent has not provided any credible justification for seeking information regarding the personal assets of the MCD employee in question.

10. There can be no doubt that the information sought by respondent is personal information concerning an employee of MCD. Such information could be disclosed only if respondent could establish that disclosure of such information was justified by larger public interest. Even if the PIO was satisfied that disclosure of such information was justified, the PIO was required to follow the procedure given under Section 11 of the Act; that is, the PIO was required to give a notice to the concerned employee stating that he intends to disclose the information and invite the employee to make submissions on the question whether such information ought to be disclosed.”

DECISION

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission advises the Respondent to consider publishing the said information on points 02 & 03 in Telugu Language for the benefit of the Public at large.

The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.

(Bimal Julka)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Mr. Ravuri Ramesh Babu v. Income Tax in Appeal No.:- CIC/DITIN/A/2017/104537-BJ, Date of Decision : 16.03.2018