Names of parties for which the legal expenses have been borne by LIC was denied u/s 8(1)(j) – Appellant: there seems to have been a financial scam in the name of legal expenses – PIO: legal expenses are subject to yearly audit – CIC: appeal rejected
2 Mar, 2014ORDER
Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri B. N. P. Srivastava, submitted RTI application dated 14 October 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Muzaffarpur; seeking information relating to name of both the parties involved in certain court cases mentioned in the RTI application for which the legal expenses, as reported, have been borne by the respondent company.
2. Vide CPIO Order dated 20 October 2012, CPIO denied the information 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. of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred appeal to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) dated 15 November 2012.
4. Vide FAA Order dated 17 December 2012, the FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision.
5. Being aggrieved and not satisfied by the above response of the Public Authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
6. The appellant stated that he had asked for information seeking names of parties in 28 court cases for which the legal expanses have been borne by LIC of India. He further stated that he had been denied information being 3rd. party information, however, he alleged that the funds of LIC are being misused by way of payment of legal fee. He also stated that there seems to have been a financial scam in the name of legal expenses to the tune of over 1 lakh.
7. The respondents submitted that the information was denied to them being third party information as Shri BNP Srivastava is neither related to nor party to these court cases, therefore, in view of 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. of the Act, the information may not be disclosed to the appellant. She also stated that all legal expanses are subject to yearly audit and the fraud as alleged by appellant could not have remained undetected.
Decision notice
8. The decision of the CPIO is uphold. The appellant may approach the appropriate forum for making his complaint.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri BNP Srivastava v. LIC of India in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000322/MP