Copy of offer letter of wife, form 16, monthly pay etc. - CIC: Even if there is a husband-wife relationship between the appellant and the third person regarding whom he is seeking the information, a husband is considered as a third party to his wife

Information Sought:

The Appellant has sought the following information pertaining to his wife Mrs. Charmi Tengar daughter of Mr. Harish Nath working in Cognizant Technology Solutions, Noida, UP:

1. Provide certified copy of the offer letter given to Mrs. Charmi Tengar at the time of the Joining.

2. Provide certified copies of the undertakings submitted by her at the time of joining.

3. Provide details of the Referral Employee who referred Mrs. Charmi Tengar for appointment at Cognizant Technology Solutions.

4. And other related information.

Grounds for Second Appeal

CPIO has not given satisfactory information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant when called over phone submitted that the case may be decided on the basis of the documents filed by him. In his second appeal memo he had stated that till date no information has been provided to him.

The CPIO reiterated the contents of the initial reply dated 16.04.2019 and his latest submissions dated 16.04.2021. The rest of the information could not be provided as they are not the custodians of such information.

Observations:

From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the appellant is seeking information about his wife which included the copy of her offer letter, form 16, monthly pay structure etc. To this the CPIO in his reply had clearly stated that such information is not available with them and is available with a private company over which they have no jurisdiction. However, the Commission noted that even if the information was available with the respondent authority, the same qualifies to be personal information related to a third party and even if there is a husband- wife relationship between the appellant and the third person regarding whom he is seeking the information but under the RTI Act, a husband is considered as a third party to his wife and the same applies vice-versa. Unless and until there is an involvement of larger public interest in disclosure of the information, or the information sought is already in public domain, no relief can be given in such cases. In the present case also, since the appellant was unable to establish any larger public interest apart from submitting that he has to defend the various cases filed by his wife against him, no further relief can be given.

It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant had filed another RTI application seeking similar information about his wife which was decided by the same bench on 10.12.2020 in File No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/636125 & File No. CIC/DGEAT/A/2019/638984 order dated 25.11.2020 and the appellant was already informed that the information sought by him is exempted from disclosure u/s 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. of the RTI Act.

Decision:

In view of the above, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO and does not find any scope for further intervention in the matter.

The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna

Information Commissioner

Citation: Saurabh Singh v. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in File No.: - CIC/NCLAT/A/2019/640777, Date of Decision: 23/04/2021