A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

CIC took grave exception to the initial deemed refusal caused by the then PIO as well as his failure to comply with the FAA’s order; PIO to send a proper written explanation for the above omission and in doing so, the onus of omission lies with the PIO

Appellant: Information provided by the Respondent is case specific; the general rules under which a PLI proposal can be rejected were not provided - CIC enquired and directed the Respondent to re-examine and furnish the general P.O.I.F. rules

Appellant: Though Rajubhai inherited a house, he misrepresented his eligibility to wrongfully qualify for and receive the PMAY subsidy; Records and actions taken sought - NHB: No formal complaint lodged - CIC: No intervention required in the matter

CIC: Section 138(1)(b) of the IT Act specifically states that information relating to an assessee can only be supplied subject to the satisfaction of Principal Chief Commissioner or CC or PC or Commissioner; It would prevail over Section 22 of the RTI Act

PIO provided a cyclostyled response to applicant seeking information about distance Mode at Private Universities - CIC: Conduct of PIO indicates a sheer disregard for the mandate of the RTI Act; Penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed for deemed refusal

Information was not provided by the Department of Hindu Religious Institutions and Waqf and FAA’s order was also not complied; PIO abstained from hearing - CIC issued a SCN to the present PIO and the then PIO for imposing penalty u/s 20 (1) of the RTI Act

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Disclosure of marks secured by the appellant and others in the District Court Clerical recruitment process

Transparency is a pathway to better Elections and stronger Democracy

RTI portal – Supreme Court issues contempt notice to the States and UTs

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

Details of students of a girls school, who left school before completion of 12th class during the years 2010 to 2012, including their phone numbers, addresses etc - CIC: appellant admonished & warned for harassing girls; school asked to display this order

16 Dec, 2014

Summary

While it is the primary duty of the Commission to ensure disclosure of the information to the citizen, it is equally important duty of the Commission to protect the private and personal information of the people from the undue intrusions by dubious characters, by enforcing the exemptions under RTI Act. The RTI Act for the first time codified the privacy rights of the people through exemptions under Section 8. While appreciating efforts to safeguard the girl students of her school, the Commission directs the Principal to take appropriate legal action and to inform the Commission about its progress. The appellant is admonished and warned for harassing the girls by calling them or approaching them or by seeking personal information about them. The Commission therefore directs the school authorities and Respondent public authority not to disclose any personal information of girl students and the Principal to intimate the parents and the Commission as to what safety measures were initiated to secure the privacy of girls from intruders like the appellant. The Commission also directs the School and DDE to prominently display this order of admonition of the appellant so that the teachers, girls and their parents do not respond to this person.

The appellant is present. The Public Authority is represented by Ms. Kamalesh Biswas, Education Officer, Ms. Sangeeta Deshwal, Principal, Directorate of Education (West B), GNCTD, New Delhi.

2. The appellant has filed the above two appeals against the same public authority and hence they are heard together today.

FACTS

3. The appellant through his first RTI application dated 2-5-2013 [CIC/DS/A/2013/002397SA], sought information regarding the details of the girl students of the Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, a girls school, who left school before completion of 12th class during the years 2010 to 2012, including their names, phone numbers, addresses etc. The PIO furnished information regarding the number of students who secured school leaving certificates during 2010 to 2013 and relating to teachers etc on 762013. The PIO refused the personal information of the girl students under 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 Right to Information Act. The appellant made first appeal before the FAA, who by his order dated 27-8-2013 upheld the information given by the PIO, who had stated that all the requisite information has been provided except the personal information of girls students, who objected for giving their personal information.

4. In his second RTI application dated 4-7-2013 [CIC/DS/A/2013/002398SA], the appellant is seeking all the copies of the correspondence done by the Girls School with the girls/girls’ parents, regarding furnishing of their personal information to the appellant, etc. The PIO on 182013 denied information on private, personal information of girls and for security reasons. The appellant has filed first appeal before the FAA, who by his order dated 7-10-2013 upheld the decision of PIO for denying information 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.

5. Claiming dissatisfaction, appellant filed two 2nd appeals before the Commission.

Decision:

6. Heard the submissions made by both the parties. The Commission sought to know who the appellant was and why he was asking for this personal information of girl students who dropped out from 12th Class. The appellant refused to answer quoting Section 6(2) of RTI Act, which does not require to reveal who and why of RTI application. The Commission explained that when 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. exemption was claimed by respondents, the Commission has to examine whether larger public interest was involved in disclosure or in nondisclosure. Then appellant claims that he is a social worker on right to education for children and is associated with an NGO which he did not name despite questioning. He could also not answer when Commission asked whether he enrolled any children into schools under RTE Act. He wanted to call or contact the girl students to find out why they dropped out.

7. The respondent authority/Principal of the Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyala, on the other hand, openly stated that appellant was misusing the RTI to divert students to his coaching center and also calling them on phone posing to be an Education Officer to collect the details. The Principal also produced around seven written objections given by the girls and parents individually or in group. She said that parents of some girls have objected to the giving of contact address/phone numbers to the appellant and they were also informed that the appellant was neither a social worker nor associated with any NGO. The Principal of the School also stated that some girls told that they were asked by appellant to meet him personally. The Principal raised several doubts about the genuineness of the appellant’s various kinds of demands. She reported on 17th September 2013 her suspicion and the dubious claims of appellant to superior officers, copy of which was filed. Principal stated that the appellant was also trespassing into the School premises after entering different names in the school entry register of the school. During the hearing the appellant had engaged in a rough conversation with the Principal in threatening voice during. The principal was bold enough to explain her apprehensions exposing dubious intentions of appellant on his face.

8. The Commission found no reason to doubt the statement of the Principal which was supported by several written documents while appellant could not establish his bona fides.

9. The Commission finds no public interest in disclosure of private and personal information of teenage girl students to a person whose intentions are doubtful. Instead the Commission finds huge private interest of appellant in seeking this personal information either to poach them to his coaching center or for other selfish or vested interests. Such individuals are real danger to the girl schools like one in this case and it is the duty of the Principal to safeguard the girl students from dubious characters.

10. While it is the primary duty of the Commission to ensure disclosure of the information to the citizen, it is equally important duty of the Commission to protect the private and personal information of the people from the undue intrusions by dubious characters, by enforcing the exemptions under RTI Act. The RTI Act for the first time codified the privacy of rights of the people through exemptions under Section 8. While appreciating efforts to safeguard the girl students of her school, the Commission directs the Principal to take appropriate legal action and to inform the Commission about the progress of the action. The Commission observes that by this time she should have already initiated action against the appellant.

11. The Madras High Court in P. Jayasankar v Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil nadu and Gunaseelan, IPS [W.P No. 3776 & 3778/2013] decided on 18.2.2013 explained powers and duties of the Commission as follows :

“12. … as regards the question as to whether the particular information seeker can be disqualified or blacklisted from sending further representation having regard to the conduct of the concerned person, certainly if a person abuses the process of law and also insinuating the Commission. 62..... Under the provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 4, 12, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 and 25, it is clear that the Central or State Information Commission, as the case may be, not only exercises adjudicatory powers of a nature no different than a judicial tribunal, but is vested with the powers of a civil court as well. Therefore, it is required to decide a lis, where information is required by a person and its furnishing is contested by the other. The Commission exercises two kinds of penal powers; firstly, in terms of Section 20(1), it can impose penalty upon the defaulters or violators of the provisions of the Act and, secondly, Section 20(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him. empowers the Central and the State Information Commission to conduct an enquiry and direct the disciplinary authority concerned to take appropriate action against the erring officer in accordance with law. Hence, the Commission has powers to pass orders having civil as well as penal consequences. Besides this, the Commission has been given monitory and recommendatory powers. 74.... It is clear that the authorities concerned, particularly the Information Commission, possess the essential attributes and trappings of a court. Its powers and functions, as defined under the Act of 2005 also sufficiently indicate that it has adjudicatory powers quite akin to the court system. They adjudicate matters of serious consequences.

The Commission may be called upon to decide how far the right to information is affected where information sought for is denied or whether the information asked for is "exempted" or impinges upon the "right to privacy" or where it falls in the "nogo area" of applicability of the Act. It is not mandatory for the authorities to allow all requests for information in a routine manner. The Act of 2005 imposes an obligation upon the authorities to examine such matter seriously being fully cautions of its consequences and effects on the right of others. It may be a simple query for information but an have farreaching consequences upon the right of a third party or an individual with regard to whom such information is sought. Undue inroad into the right to privacy of an individual which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India or any other law in force would not be permissible. In Gobind v. State of M.P., this Court held that: : (SCC p. 155, para 22) 22... privacy dignity claims deserve to be examined with care and to be denied only when an important countervailing interest is shown to be superior. In Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India, this (Supreme) Court has observed that the right to privacy is an integral part of the right to life. Thus, the decision making process by these authorities is not merely of an administrative nature. The functions of these authorities are more aligned towards the judicial functions of the courts rather than mere administrative acts of the State authority. ….. In view of the above finding, henceforth, no information seeker can be allowed to insinuate or defame the Commissioners in the guise of prosecuting their cases. 14. Under such circumstances, when specific power is vested on the Commissioner and the Commission had proceeded against the information seeker, who had abused the Chief Information Commissioner in the course of his proceedings, it will be open to the said authority to disqualify a particular information seeker by passing a speaking order. “

12. Though the Commission finds that this a fit case to disqualify the abuser of RTI using the powers and duties under RTI Act as interpreted by Madras High Court in the above referred case, it restrains itself from disqualifying the appellant. The appellant is hereby admonished and warned for harassing the girls by calling them or approaching them or by seeking any information about them for the following reasons:

a) Appellant miserably failed to show any public interest, much less larger public interest in seeking the personal details of the girl students.

b) The information being sought is sensitive for girls and their parents and directly concerned with their security and also of privacy, and it has nothing to do with any public activity.

c) Appellant could not establish that he is a genuine NGO or working for right to education.

d) Appellant could not allay the fears that he was trying to poach girl students for the purposes of diverting them to his coaching center or for such other selfish purposes.

e) At least seven letters were written by girls and parents objected to giving of any information about girls of the school. They have a right of privacy under Article 21 and under Section 8 of RTI Act.

f) There is no reason to doubt the apprehensions of the Principal about the appellant especially after he entered false names in school entry register and reportedly claimed to be a education officer to speak to girls.

13. The Commission therefore directs the school authorities and Respondent public authority not to disclose any personal information of girl students and the Principal to intimate the parents and the Commission as to what safety measures were initiated to secure privacy of the girls from intruders like the appellant by name Mr. Rajesh Kumar. The Commission also directs the School and DDE to prominently display this order of admonition of the appellant so that the teachers, girls and their parents do not respond to this person.

14. The Commission directs the Deputy Director of Education Vikaspuri to inform the Commission as to what action was taken against the report sent by the Principal, and directs the Principal to pursue action on her letter.

15. With the above orders the Commission dismisses two appeals as it could not find any merit in the two appeals preferring not to interfere with the decision of the PIO/FAA in both the appeals.

(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Rajesh Kumar v. Directorate of Education (WestB), GNCTD in (1) File No.CIC/DS/A/2013/002397SA (2) File No.CIC/DS/A/2013/002398SA

Details of students of a girls school, who left school before completion of 12th class during the years 2010 to 2012, including their phone numbers, addresses etc - CIC: appellant admonished & warned for harassing girls; school asked to display this order

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.