Disclosure of the TA bill of a government official under RTI

Background

The appellant sought the basic pay and the pay scale of a person working at Central Institute for Sub-Tropical Horticulture. He also sought a copy of his TA bill regarding his visit to Varanasi. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the information related to basic pay and the pay scale but refused to provide a copy of the Travelling Allowance Bill (TA bill). During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), he submitted that the requested information is not disclosable to the appellant under section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

View of CIC

The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that reliance on section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; and section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act is misplaced. However, the Commission noted that the information regarding the TA bill was third party information and such information can be disclosed only in the larger public interest.

Comments

The view of this bench is at variance with that made by the other benches of CIC. It would be proper that a larger bench is constituted to resolve the difference in opinion of the different benches.

Citation: Mr. D.S. Singh v. Central Institute for Sub-Tropical Horticulture, in File No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001843/LS