Information pertaining to appellant’s late wife was sought - CIC: Severe that part of the information which would result in disclosure of reasons of leave which is a third party information; provide certified copy of Daily Diary register for 31.12.2012

ORDER

1. Shri Sunil Kumar filed an application dated 21.06.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Delhi Police seeking information on eight points pertaining to his wife Late SI Preeti Kumari Daka including

(i) details of cases in which his wife was made an IO/Asstt.IO by SHO, Sarita Vihar PS along with case nos. and the courts where the cases are pending,

(ii) the dates when she applied for leave between 01.01.2012 to 06.01.2013 along with certified copies of the applications for leave,

(iii) the official mobile numbers which were used by her and the personal mobile number which was intimated to the PS Sarita Vihar,

(iv) on which duty she was deputed by the SHO on 31.12.2012, and

(v) certified copies of the DD/GD/Roznamcha for 31.12.2012.

2 The appellant filed second appeal before the Commission on 26.11.2014 on the ground that the respondent had wrongly denied the information sought by him under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act and that when the FAA can give directions for providing information pertaining to point nos. 5 to 7 of the RTI application, he can very well have provided information on point nos. 1 to 4 and 8.

Hearing:

3. The appellant, Shri Sunil Kumar and the respondent, Shri Rakesh Sangwan, Inspector, South East District, Delhi Police and Shri Prem Kishore Gupta, S.I., North West District, Delhi Police were present in person in the hearing.

4. The appellant submitted that the information pertaining to point nos. 1 to 4 and 8 of his RTI application has been denied to him on the ground that the same is third party personal information. The appellant further submitted that he is the legally wedded husband of Late SI Preeti Kumari Daka and is thus entitled to seek information pertaining to his wife.

5. The respondent submitted that the information sought by the appellant is a third party personal information and no larger public interest would be served by providing the information. In this context the respondent cited the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP Civil No. 27734/2012 (Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC) in which the Hon’’ble court has held :

“the performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest”.

The respondent further submitted that since in the present matter the information sought relates to third party personal information as defined 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 and the disclosure of the same would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual, therefore the same cannot be disclosed.

Decision:

6. The Commission heard the submissions of both the parties and perused the records. The Commission with regard to information sought in point no. 3 of the RTI application, directs the CPIO to provide information after severing that part of the information which would result in disclosure of reasons /purpose of leave which is a third party personal information and is exempted 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, 2005. The Commission further directs the respondent to provide to the appellant certified copy of Daily Diary register for 31.12.2012 of Sarita Vihar PS along with certified copies of the information/documents pertaining to point nos. 5 to 7 of the RTI application within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

8. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.

(Sudhir Bhargava)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Sunil Kumar v. Delhi Police in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2014/003655/SB