Copy of Credential Verification report and copy of Verification/Validity Report from UGC/AICTE/ or others about MBA Degree of candidates - CIC: It qualifies as third-party information exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j); No larger public interest invoked
6 Sep, 2023
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
“1. Copy of Credential Verification report in r/o. Manager (Finance) directly recruited mentioned at S.No. 67 ,71, 71, 73, 75, 76,77, 78, 78, 80, 159, 161 & 164 in the seniority list of Manager (Finance) as on 31.12.2020.
2. Copy of Verification/Validity Report from UGC/AICTE/ or any other Govt. sector about the MBA (Fm) Degree in r/O. Manager (Finance) directly recruited, mentioned at S.No. 67, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 78, 80, 159, 161 & 164 in the seniority list of Manager (Finance) as on 31.12.2020.”
PIO vide letter dated 23.03.2022 furnished reply as under:
“…Section4 of the RTI Act confers the Right to Information to all citizens. Section-6(1).- further provides that a 'person' who desires to obtain information under the Act shall make a request in writing…”
PIO vide letter dated 01.04.2022 denied information on the ground that the disclosure of information sought would cause unwarranted invasion of personal information of third party and same is exempted under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 03.04.2022 and the same has not been adjudicated upon as per records.
Written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 25.07.2023.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Present
Respondent:
1. Mr. GirishKumar, Jt GM(HR)
2. Mr. R.K. Sharma, AGM (HR)
The Appellant submitted that the requisite information has not been furnished till date. He further stated that the Respondent be directed to furnish the information as sought.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that as desired by the Appellant, the verification of credential has been completed in respect of the candidates mentioned by the Appellant except at SI. No. 67, 71, 76 & 161 for which the appropriate action has been taken and will be completed shortly. As regards the copy of the credential verification/report from UGC AICTE etc. may not be provided as per clause 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005 because information relates to another candidate and have no relationship to any larger public interest.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appellant has sought information which qualifies as third-party information and same is exempted from disclosure as per 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. Further no larger public interest has been invoked by the Appellant. In view of this, Commission finds it pivotal to highlight a landmark judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein aspect of “personal information” has been explained in a highly structured manner. In this regard, ratio laid down in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme
Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010.
The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
“…59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive…”
Adverting to the supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case has categorized a variety of aspects that comes under the purview of “personal information” which are 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. of the RTI Act. Commission taking into account the facts of the referred case deny the request of Appellant for disclosure of the information and upholds the submission of the PIO. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya
Information Commissioner
Citation: Manoj Kumar v. Airports Authority of India, CIC/AAOIN/A/2022/636391; Date of Decision: 25.08.2023