Information regarding the details of nomination registered in case of Shri Paramjit Singh were denied u/s 8(1)(j) & (e) citing third party information - The third party who was present during hearing also confirmed the position - CIC: denial upheld

ORDER

1. The appellant, Ms. Krishan Kaur, submitted RTI application dated 23 March 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), LIC of India, Chandigarh, seeking information regarding the details of nomination registered in case of Shri Paramjit Singh Assistant LIC of India.

2. Vide reply dated 8 April 2013, the CPIO denied the information sought on the ground that information sought pertains to third party and cannot be provided 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. 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. & 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 as the said third party i.e Shri Paramjit Singh had represented vide his letter dated 4.4.2013 against the disclosure of the information pertaining to him. The information desired by the appellant cannot be furnished as the disclosure of this information is protected u/s 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied with response of the CPIO, the appellant preferred appeal dated 16 April 2013 before the CIC/DS/A/2013/002202/MP 1 First Appellate Authority (FAA) stating that he had not been provided the information sought. Vide order dated 11 May 2013, the FAA upheld the decision of CPIO.

3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.

4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The CPIO stated that the information sought by the appellant was personal information and pertained to third party and therefore it could not be provided under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The third party, Shri Paramjit Singh (appellant’s husband) had also represented against the disclosure of his information. Hence the information ahs been denied 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. 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. & (e) and 11 of the RTI Act. The third party who was present during hearing also confirmed the position.

5. The Commission considered the submissions of the parties and hold that the CPIO has rightly denied information to the appellant being third party information. The decision of CPIO and FAA is upheld. The appeal is disposed of.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Ms. Krishan Kaur v. Life Insurance Corporation of India in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/002202MP