A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

Central Empowered Committee: Documents pertaining to particular application filed by Sheth Anandji Kalyanji Trust and sought by the Applicant are not available in records - CIC: Appropriate response has been provided; Explain the absence during hearing

Refusal by Financial Services Institutions Bureau (FSIB) to provide information related to the appointment of Mr. Pankaj Dwivedi, accused of heinous crimes against women, as Executive Director in Public Sector Banks - CIC: Denail u/s 8(1)(j) is justified

What does the term “Relevant Trades” in eligibility criteria mean? - CIC: Requisite information should have been disclosed upfront or through FAQs; Advisory issued u/s 25(5) to disclose the meaning of “Relevant Trade” & to create a FAQ section on website

Respondent: Complaint has been forwarded to the Special Commissioner (Vig.) Delhi Police for necessary action; Delhi Police works under MHA, GoI which is a separate Government - CIC: PIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held

CIC: Though the reply given by the PIO, Brach Office was appropriate as the file was not available with them, the fact remains that the file was available with the Corporate Office - CIC: Collect the information u/s 5(4) and provide to the appellant

Information regarding who is authority to work as Central Government u/s 3,5,16, and 19 of The FTDR Act, 1992 - Respondent: Deduction is not covered under the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act - CIC: No infirmity in the reply

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

RTI portal – Supreme Court issues contempt notice to the States and UTs

Reasons for seeking certified copies is not inconsistent with the provisions of RTI Act

Regulation 21 of Consumer Protection Regulation does not prohibit grant of records to RTI Applicants

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

Information related to case files, disposed or pending against the officials of Narcotics Control Bureau under Prevention of Corruption Act - CIC: Material on record does not call for ascribing larger public interest in the disclosure; No action u/s 18

18 Aug, 2023

Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 14.02.2022 seeking information related to case files or registered petition disposed or pending if any before the Commission against the officials of Narcotics Control Bureau under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

1. Kindly furnish the detail of registered cases from the date 1st Oct, 2021 till the date against the Narcotics Control Bureau, if any. If so, kindly provide the case number, date of registration and the subject related to the case.

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 03.03.2022 stating as under:

“Information sought by you is third party information, hence 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. 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, 2005”.

Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 29.03.2022. FAA’s order dated 19.04.2022 stating as under:-

“On perusal of record, it is found that the document furnished in reply to the RTI application dated 14.02.2022 is not certified. The CPIO is advised to ensure that replies to RTI application are furnished as per formal form of communication of this Public Authority. Further, CPIO is advised to re-examine the RTI application of the appellant and furnish information held by this Public Authority connected to the RTI application”.

In compliance with the FAA’s order, the CPIO informed the Appellant on 28.04.2022 that the information stands 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. 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 also stated that the information entails disproportionate diversion of resources.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Complainant: Present through video conference.

Respondent: Dhananjay Kumar Ranjan, Director & CPIO present through intravideo conference.

As the hearing commenced and the Complainant was offered to put plead his case, he appeared largely confused or unable to plead. After certain extent of prodding, the Complainant feebly stated that he has filed written submissions. The written submissions dated 21.07.2023 is, therefore, reproduced hereunder sans the contents wherein the contents of RTI queries and CPIO’s reply etc. has been merely reiterated:

“7. The information I was expected from the CPIO have an exact connection with a case registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai Zonal Unit, related to an arrest on 03-10-2021, which I have furnished in detail in my section 18 petition [Ref: 10(V)]. But that particular disclosure of information has been refused by the DPIO & CPIO as per section 8(1) (i) and 8(1) (j). As per section 8(1) (i) of the RTI act in connection with the sought information, the decisions of Council of Ministers and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken. Now it is certainly among the public that a law enforcement agency is handling the case concerned to my sought information and a file [CIC/NCBRK/C/2021/658261 dated 12-05-2021 (section 18 Complaint Ref. No. 10(II)] still under the consideration of the Hon’ble Chief Information Commissioner, on behalf of the intervention of the Respected Central Vigilance Commission. Therefore, the appeal under section 19(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. may be legally dispose by the Information Commission; hence section 18 complaint has been moved before the Hon’ble Central Information Commission for an appropriate legal document.

8. According to the section 18 Complaint, my prayer before the Hon’ble Central Information Commission that kindly inspect the ground of denial of RTI request by the CPIO and Appellate as per section 8(1) (j) in view of an existing public interest in large for demanding action against corruption in Narcotics Control Bureau. The Hon’ble Commission may directly examine the section 8(1) (j), how much is relevant towards the RTI request and large public interest.

9. I request the Hon’ble Central Information Commission may kindly examine the section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. is how much is relevant towards the RTI request. I request the Commission that kindly scrutinizes the impact on safety or preservation of the record in question as per section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

10. Therefore I request the Hon’ble Commission may kindly interfere into the issues and inspect the detrimental matters to the safety or preservation of record in question as per section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of the RTI act. Also I request the Commission may kindly direct the CPIO and Appellate to furnish the explanation letter with proof regarding the detrimental matters to the safety or preservation of record in question as per section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of the RTI Act.

No action is prayed against the Respected CPIO and First Appellate at CVC as it is a statutory body, if received an explanation letter with proof regarding the detrimental matters and issues to the safety or preservation of record in question, specially sought under the RTI application as per section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of the act.”

The CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant on 28.04.2022.

Decision

The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record does not find any infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO in as much as the information sought for in the RTI Application firstly entails unspecified number of cases and secondly, disclosure of all the cases will hamper the privacy of various third-parties as per 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. 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. In this regard, the attention of the Complainant 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. 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…”

Further, on the aspect of larger public interest, the Commission places reliance on a catena of judgments of the superior Courts on the import of “public interest” as under:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.9052 OF 2012] observed as under:

“23. The expression ‘public interest’ has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression ‘public interest’ must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression ‘public interest’, like ‘public purpose’, is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs. [State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (AIR 1952 SC 252)]. It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recommendation and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black’s Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)]. Emphasis Supplied

“24. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision. Certain matters, particularly in relation to appointment, are required to be dealt with great confidentiality.”

“.... Similarly, there may be cases where the disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. All these protections have to be given their due implementation as they spring from statutory exemptions. It is not a decision simpliciter between private interest and public interest. It is a matter where a constitutional protection is available to a person with regard to the right to privacy. Thus, the public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance factor between right to privacy and right to information with the purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be served in the larger public interest, particularly when both these rights emerge from the constitutional values under the Constitution of India.” Emphasis Supplied

Similarly, in another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. P. Gupta v President of India, [AIR 1982 SC 149], with reference to ‘public interest’ it has been maintained that:

“Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, ‘diffused’ rights and interests vindicate public interest… [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.” Emphasis Supplied

And, in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others [Appeal (Civil) 4937-4940 of 1998], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:

“the interest of general public (public interest) is of a wide importance covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution [i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy]”. Emphasis Supplied

Since the strength of the material on record does not call for ascribing larger public interest in the disclosure of the information related to the third-party related cases in any of the above referred contexts, the denial of the information by the CPIO is appropriate.

Having observed as above, the Commission is not inclined to initiate any action under Section 18 of the RTI Act as desired by the Complainant in his written submissions, since the material on record does not warrant an inquiry under Section 18(2) Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof. of the RTI Act.

The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.

Saroj Punhani

Information Commissioner

Citation: Rohith Methayil Rajagopal v. Central Vigilance Commission, CIC/CVCOM/C/2022/651174; Date of Decision: 21/07/2023

Information related to case files, disposed or pending against the officials of Narcotics Control Bureau under Prevention of Corruption Act - CIC: Material on record does not call for ascribing larger public interest in the disclosure; No action u/s 18

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.