An ex-employee sought information regarding alleged fake and inaccurate entries in the CTS/CMS at Banking Ombudsman Office - CIC: Appellant is raising speculative statements and expressing conjecture to channelise his service-related grievance
22 Nov, 2023Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.06.2022 seeking the following information:
“a) When Anupam Sonal was posted as Banking Ombudsman at New Delhi, thousands of fake complaints from fake IDs as well as complaints with inaccurate/incomplete details had been found entered in the complaints management system (CMS) and complaint tracking system (CTS) of RBI. Whether RBI has conducted investigation into the circumstances in which such fake and inaccurate entries were made in RBI system? YES/NO
b) If answer to query (a) above is YES, kindly provide me with a copy of the investigation report.
c) How many fake and inaccurate entries have been found entered in the CTS/CMS at Banking Ombudsman Office, New Delhi?
d) Whether similar fake entries have been found entered at any other office of RBI or Banking Ombudsman?
e) Kindly provide the names and designations of RBI employees found responsible for entering such fake and inaccurate entries in the system.
f) What disciplinary action has been taken against RBI officials responsible for such fake and inaccurate entries in the system?
g) What action has been taken by RBI to prevent such fake entries in CMS and other similar applications in RBI in future?
h) Kindly provide the names and designations of RBI employees who first reported this scam at Banking Ombudsman Office New Delhi to their senior officers in RBI?
i) In which Centres and Departments Anupam Sonal has been posted after getting transferred out of Banking Ombudsman Office, New Delhi?
j) How many customer complaints (including fake entries) were received by Banking Ombudsman, New Delhi on CTS/CMS and how many complaints were closed during each of the calendar years 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019.
k) Kindly provide me with copy of office noting at Ombudsman Office, New Delhi, RBI New Delhi and CEPD, RBI Central Office on the action taken to curb fake/inaccurate entries in CTS/CMS.
l) Kindly provide me with copy of office noting showing the decision taken on the complaint submitted by Satish Kumar Bansal, ex-employee of Banking Ombudsman Office, New Delhi regarding massive irregularities in CTS/CMS data entry.”
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 29.06.2022 stating as under:
“a) We do not have any information in this regard.
b) We do not have any information in this regard.
c) We do not have any information in this regard.
d) We do not have any information in this regard.
e) We do not have any information in this regard.
f) We do not have any information in this regard.
g) We do not have any information in this regard.
h) We do not have any information in this regard.
i) Smt. Anupam Sonal, CGM was posted to Enforcement Department, Central Office, Mumbai and subsequently to Consumer Education and Protection Department, Central Office, Mumbai after her transfer from New Delhi.
j) We do not have any information regarding “customer complaints (including fake entries) received by Banking Ombudsman, New Delhi”. However, the data on number of complaints received and disposed pertaining to office of the RBI Ombudsman, New Delhi, during F. Y. 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 is provided in the Annual Reports of Ombudsman Schemes for the respective Financial Year, available at: https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/AnnualPublications.aspx?head=Annual%20Report %20on%20Banking%20Ombudsman%20Scheme
k) We do not have any information in this regard.
l) As, enclosed, after severing the personal information which is exempted under section 8 (1)(j) as per section 10 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.”
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.07.2022. FAA’s order dated: 16.09.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Deepika Kadrekar, Manager & Rep. of CPIO along with Amrutha T J, Legal Officer present through audio conference.
The Appellant lamented at length against the reply provided by the CPIO, the sum and substance of his arguments are contained in his written submissions in the following excerpt:
“a) I have since been dismissed from service by RBI under various false charges. One of the major charges levelled against me is that I had made “baseless allegations” against RBI senior officers. I can successfully challenge the unfair dismissal if I am provided with documentary evidences to prove that my allegations are based on facts. However, denial of requested information sought under RTI is a serious obstacle in proving my allegations.
b) When the Banking Ombudsman data scam first got exposed, several RBI employees had informed me about the same through RBI corporate e-mail. However I am unable to access the said e-mail evidences since my corporate email account has been illegally suspended since May 2022 without giving me any prior notice at all.
c) After I escalated the above data scam to RBI Top Management, my corporate e-mail ID was immediately suspended. I am the only employee in the history of RBI whose e-mail has been suspended, although my name does not appear in even a single IT exception report of RBI. None of the hundreds of RBI employees whose names have appeared in IT exception reports have had their email suspended. This proves that my e-mail had been suspended with malicious intent to deny me access to incriminating evidences.
d) Since my corporate e-mail was suddenly suspended without giving me any prior notice at all. I was unable to save or preserve the vital digital evidences pertaining to various scams including the Banking Ombudsman fake data entry scam. Since I have been dismissed from service while my e-mail account was suspended, I could not furnish several vital e-mail evidences in my self-defence during the departmental enquiry. –
e) Therefore the furnishing of required information to me can help me in getting back my job and get the unjust penalty reversed.
f) Since denial of access to my own e-mail account amounts to violation of my fundamental rights to freedom and equality, it becomes the Bank's constitutional obligation to provide me with the information sought under RTI.
g) Since I had sought entire office notings at New Delhi Ombudsman Office. New Delhi RBI office and CEPD Central Office, providing me with only CEPD office noting while suppressing the more important New Delhi office notings amounts to providing partial information without any valid reasons at all
h) Since the names of officials have been removed from office noting, it is not possible for me to know which officials had suppressed information and the nature of collusion among such officials.
4. The following facts and evidences indicate that the information sought has been deliberately denied with ulterior motives.
a) Since RBI is the owner of the CTS/CMS systems, the requested data is available with RBI. Hence denial of such information implies deliberate suppression of truth.
b) I have been dismissed from service by conducting an ex-parte enquiry without first sending me notice of enquiry to fix enquiry dates, without allowing any of my witnesses to be examined, without providing me with documentary evidences requested by me, without providing me with video recording of enquiry proceedings, and thereafter by deliberately distorting the hearing minutes and blatantly refusing to accept my dissent note and objections to the hearing minutes.
c) All the CCTV footage requested by me till date from RBI have been deliberately suppressed or destroyed without preserving, despite my repeated written requests to preserve the same until completion of investigation.
d) When I made an RTI query dated 30-04-2023 to obtain the required CCTV footage, the CPIO failed to provide the same, despite clear written instruction from RBI Central Office to preserve the footage. Not only that, the CPIO even removed vital details such as dates and name/designation of officials from the relevant office noting When I questioned the CPIO's decision. the First Appellate Authority Shri Radha Shyam Ratho made an indirectly intimidating statement in his order dated 07.07-2023 that employees should not question the decisions of their superior officers”. If this is the attitude of CPIO and FAA, then I am afraid, the RTI Act 2005 has failed to achieve its intended goal.
e) Instead of penalising the officials responsible for the deliberate suppression of information, the FAA has been trying instead to protect the officials concerned
f) All the senior executives allegedly involved in the Banking Ombudsman data scam have been elevated to higher positions, whereas the honest officials who reportedly protested against the scam have been sidelined and given no work at all in the office.
g) Names of officials are an integral component of office notes, and the same should be provided to the information seeker. Names and designations of RBI officials are available on public domain with their full salary details also. Hence there is no justification behind removal of their names from copies of office notes provided under RTI. The CPIO of other organisations are routinely providing names and designations of officials signing office notes. Even other CPIOs of RBI are providing such information. Hence there is absolutely no reason why the current CPIO should be exempted from the same.”
The Rep. of CPIO relied on the contents of the written submissions filed by Ranjeeta Dubey, General Manager (OIC) & acting CPIO on 12.10.2023 stating inter alia as under:
“The CPIO has duly considered all the queries and issued responses to all the queries Further, the CPIO had provided available information subject to the provisions of RTI Act.
With regard to appellant's challenge to replies issued to query Nos (a) and (b), it is submitted that the same is vexatious in nature and without any merit The CPIO had informed that there is no available information with reference to appellant's query as to whether RBI had conducted investigation into the circumstances in which such fake and inaccurate entries were made in RBI system The appellant's challenge to the same before the FAA was duly analysed and dismissed by the FAA vide its observations on para 4 of the order enclosed herewith as Annexure VI. Under the provisions of RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to be provided with the available information Since there was no investigation' into the matter as contended by the appellant the CPIO had answered that there was no information available with RBI Thus, the CPIO may not be faulted for the response provided to query Nos. (a) and (b). The appellant appears to be basing his arguments on misplaced premises.
10. Appellant's challenge to reply issued to query no (c) and (d) is also without any merit. The CPIO had verified their records and had replied that there is no available information on Make and inaccurate entries entered at any office of RBI or erstwhile Banking Ombudsman. In this connection it is further submitted that the provisions of RTI Act is neither a grievance redressal mechanism nor a tool for initiation of administrative action.
11. With regard to appellants challenge to replies issued to query nos: (e), (f) and (g), it is humbly submitted that the same goes beyond the scope and ambit of the provisions of RTI Act. The CPIO has clearly stated that no information is available with regard to query nos (e), (0) and (g) Reliance is placed on the following observations of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hansi Rawat & Anr. Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors (dated 11.01 2013)
‘…and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished’
12. With regard to appellant's challenge to the reply issued to query no. (h), it is submitted that the same is without any merit. The CPIO has clearly replied stating that there is no information with regard to his query seeking the names and designations of RBI employees who reported the purported scam at New Delhi Banking Ombudsman Office to their senior officers in RBI. There is no challenge to the replies issued to query nos (i). () and (k))
13 In query (I), the appellant had sought for copy of office noting showing the decision taken on the complaint submitted by Shri Satish Bansal regarding the alleged irregularity in the date entry The CPIO had duly enclosed a copy of the note recording the final decision taken in the matter Thus, the mandate imposed under the provisions of RTI Act is duly discharged by the CPIO. The appellant may not be allowed to enlarge the scope of the RTI Application at the appeal stage I is reiterated that appellant's challenge to the reply issued to query no (1) amounts to fresh query and may not be allowed at this stage.
14 Thus it is humbly submitted that in view of the above submissions and authorities cited, it is most humbly submitted that the CPIO and FAA have duly discharged their duties as contemplated under the RTI Act Therefore, there is no merit in the present second appeal and the appellant is not entitled to any reliefs.
15. With specific reference to the relief sought by the appellant at para 10 (b) in the instant second appeal, it is submitted that the provisions of RTI Act is not a grievance redressal mechanism The dispute as to whether the appellant is on 'authorised leave' or 'unauthorised absence falls into the realm of service matter and appropriate proceedings thereon (if any), and hence, beyond the scope of the provisions of RTI Act…”
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that across the length and breadth of the Appellant’s RTI Application and other arguments on record, he is raising speculative statements and expressing conjecture to channelise his service-related grievance. In doing so, the Appellant has largely sought for answers and clarifications in the instant RTI Application which also pertains to the information related to third parties. The CPIO has attempted to facilitate the Appellant with permissible information and data while also appropriately invoking 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. and Section 10 of the RTI Act.
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
“2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;..”
In this regard, the Appellant’s attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
“35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing………A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.” (Emphasis Supplied)
Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“7….Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him….” (Emphasis Supplied)
And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held as under:
“….. In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; as follows.
Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.” (Emphasis Supplied)
As far as the information related to the third parties that has 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, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 wherein the import of “personal information” envisaged 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 RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; 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. The following was thus held:
“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…”
Having observed as above, the Appellant is advised to pursue his grievances before the appropriate forum.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani
Information Commissioner
Citation: Tapan Kumar Pradhan v. Reserve Bank of India, CIC/RBIND/A/2022/654137; Date of Decision: 18/10/2023