Information regarding reimbursement of telephone bills and travel of Supreme Court Judges

Background

The appellant sought a variety of information related with the domestic and foreign travels of Supreme Court judges and officials and the details of the reimbursement of telephone bills. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information related to the telephone bills of the judges 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. claiming that the disclosure would amount to unwarranted invasion of their privacy. For the rest of the information, the PIO suggested the appellant to inspect the relevant records stating that the desired information was scattered among a large number of files and collation and collection of the same would disproportionately divert the resources of Public Authority.

View of CIC

The Central Information Commission (CIC) examined the facts and stated that the information sought extends over a period of nearly 5 years and providing the same would indeed disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. The Commission directed the PIO to invite the appellant for the inspection of all the relevant records in respect of the domestic and foreign travels of the Supreme Court judges and its officials. The Commission further observed that the disclosure of phone details of the judges was exempt 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 but directed the PIO to provide the details of the total amount of money reimbursed towards the telephone bills of the judges.

Citation: Shri Krishan Lal Mittal v. Supreme Court of India in File No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000838