Property details of Army officers was denied u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act - CIC: Property details of third parties sought by the appellant are purely personal in nature; Mere allegation of corruption is not sufficient to consider it a public interest issue

Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information:

1. Provide details of the property developed by Maj Gen Hari Singh, Ex CE HQ Chief Engineer, Northern Command during his assignment with Indian Armed Forces with known & unknown sources of income.

2. Whether any earlier residential house has been noted in the service records in the name of Maj Gen Hari Singh or his family members/dependents?

3. Provide details of the property developed by Brig A B Sibal Ex CE HQ Chief 31 Zone during his assignment with Indian Armed Forces with known & unknown sources of income.

4. Whether any earlier residential house has been noted in the service records in the name of Brig A B Sibal or his family members/dependents?

5. And other related information.

Grounds for filing Second Appeal:

The CPIO did not provide the desired information 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. 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.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant vide written submissions dated 07.03.2023 submitted that behind the 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. of RTI Act 2005, the CPIO of Indian Army has denied the information which is related to corrupt & unaccountable performance in the Administrative setup.

The CPIO vide written submissions dated 13.03.2023 submitted that the appellant was replied to on 30.09.2021. Moreover, same information was asked for in another RTI application also which was already replied to on 27.07.2021.

Observations:

Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the property details of third parties were sought by the appellant which are purely personal in nature. Moreover, mere allegation of corruption is not sufficient to consider it a public interest issue. The appellant should be able to substantiate his plea to obtain relief.

The Commission observed that suitable replies were given, moreover, the denial of information was correct as per Sec. 8(1)(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This bench is relying on the ratio laid down in the case of CPIO ... vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal on 13 November, 2019 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it was held as under:

“36. If one’s right to know is absolute, then the same may invade another’s right to privacy and breach confidentiality, and, therefore, the former right has to be harmonised with the need for personal privacy, confidentiality of information and effective governance. The RTI Act captures this interplay of the competing rights under clause (j) to Section 8(1) and Section 11 . While clause (j) to Section 8(1) refers to personal information as distinct from information relating to public activity or interest and seeks to exempt disclosure of such information, as well as such information which, if disclosed, would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of an individual, unless public interest warrants its disclosure, Section 11 exempts the disclosure of ‘information or record…which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party’. By differently wording and indicting the challenge that privacy and confidentiality throw to information rights, the RTI Act also recognises the interconnectedness, yet distinctiveness between the breach of confidentiality and invasion of privacy, as the former is broader than the latter, as will be noticed below.

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.”

Decision:

In view of the above observations, the information sought is not disclosable 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. 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 as, the appellant could not establish larger public interest in this case and the respondents have established and justified their case of non – disclosure.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna

Information Commissioner

Citation: Anand Singh Chauhan v. Addl DG AE G-6 D1 Wing, Sena Bhawan, Army, File no.: - CIC/IARMY/A/2022/605111; Date of Decision: 15/03/2023