Punishment awarded to Armed forces personnel for the period 1999-2013 were denied by PIO (Navy) u/s 8(1)(j) and Section 11 while PIO of Army and HQ South Western Air Command provided the same - CIC: denial of information upheld

FACTS

Vide RTI dt 1.5.13 addressed to MOD, appellant had sought information on 6 points relating to punishments awarded to Armed forces personnel for the period 1999-2013 as also details of punishments awarded to L/Hav R.Santosh Kumar.

2. CPIO MOD vide letter dt 13.5.13 transferred the RTI to the three services. PIO Navy vide letter dt 23.5.13 informed appellant that the information sought is exempt from disclosure 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. and Section 11 of the RTI Act.

3. CPIO (Air HQ) vide letter dt 24.5.13, informed the appellant that the information sought is not available at the Hqrs and compilation would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority.

4. Appeals were filed on 12.6.13 (Navy) and 1.7.13 (Air Force).

5. AA (Navy) vide order dt 1.7.13, observed that the appellant has not been able to justify larger public interest and hence upheld the decision of PIO Navy.

6. AA (Air Force) vide order dt 5.8.13, observed that public authority is only required to provide information available in record and in the form it exists. Since the information was not available, the same could not be provided by the CPIO. CPIO is not required to collect and compile information. Referring to two decisions of the CIC, the stand of the CPIO was upheld.

7. As these appeals arise out of a common RTI dt 1.5.13, both the appeals are being combined.

8. Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard. Appellant submitted that PIO (Army) has allowed inspection of the concerned records and CPIO (HQ South Western Air Command) has provided information pertaining to their command, denial of information by PIO (Navy) is not tenable. He further submitted that larger public interest was involved in seeking the information. PIO (Navy) referred to the case of Dev Dutt Vs Union of India where the Armed forces are treated on a different footing. He referred to CIC order in appeal no.CIC/AT/A/2009/000200 dt 30.6.2009 wherein the Commission has observed that disclosure of file notings in vigilance and enquiry related files must not be allowed and the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa (WP No.419 of 2007 dt 3.4.2008) wherein the court has held that PIO cannot be expected to communicate to the citizens the reasons why a certain thing was done or not done. Justifications are matters within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as ‘information’. Information in respect of query no. g) was denied u/s 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act.

9. CPIO (Air HQ) reiterated that the information sought was not centrally available and to compile the same from their various Commands would disproportionately divert their resources.

DECISION

10. The Commission finds that the appellant is seeking details of Armed forces personnel (Army, Navy and Air Force) who were held guilty in criminal offences, dismissed, removed, discharged or awarded any other punishment by disciplinary authorities and related issues.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande dated October 3, 2012 has observed that the performance of an employee/officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the CPIO is satisfied that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.

12. The above observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are applicable to the present appeals and as no larger public interest is shown, the information sought is 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. of the RTI Act. The appeals are disposed of.

(Rajiv Mathur)

Central Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Gopal Krishan Gupta v. IHQ of MoD (Navy) and Air Hqrs, New Delhi in File No.CIC/SS/A/2013/002427/RM File No.CIC/SS/A/2013/002348/RM