Video recording of the proceedings of committee which examined various issues raised by Employees Welfare Association of M/s Ponds Hindustan Lever Ltd - CIC: having been submitted to the HC, the said DVDs are assumed to be authentic and verified evidence
22 Feb, 2014Video recording of the proceedings of committee which examined the technical and rehabilitation issues raised in the WP No. 8291 of 2006 filed by the Employees Welfare Association of M/s Ponds Hindustan Lever Limited - PIO: the committee was video recorded by the office of the Dy. Chief Inspector of Factories, Dindigul, who was also a member of the fact finding committee and the respondents are not aware of any information about alleged inauthenticity of the DVDs - PIO: 54 out of the 75 third parties whose medical information have been sought have refused to share such information stating that the information was given to the technical committee constituted by Govt. of India and relevant matter has already been submitted to the High Court of Madras - CIC: It is assumed that having been submitted to the Hon’ble High Court, the said DVDs are authentic and verified evidence; personal information including medical records cannot be disclosed 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. 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.
Information sought:
The Ministry of Labour & Employment vide order No. C-018019/09/2011-ISH.II dated 09/09/2011 has constituted a Committee to examine the technical and rehabilitation issues raised in the WP No. 8291 of 2006 filed by the Employees Welfare Association of M/s Ponds Hindustan Lever Limited. With regard to above matter, kindly provide the following information/ documents:
i- The proceedings at Kodaikanal held between 4th to 6th October 2011 which have been video recorded by the authorized representatives.
ii- The medical records of so-called ex workers and certain other alleged residents of Kodaikanal.
iii- The order pursuant to which Dr. R. B. Raidas and Dr. Elangovan were co-opted as members of the Committee.
iv- The minutes of various meetings and particularly those held on 18th and 19th October 2011 and 8th and 9th November 2011.
v- Copy of the report submitted by Ministry of Labour & Employment with the Central Government on 19th October 2011.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The PIO has refused to provide the information claiming that it pertains to third party.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on 05/12/2013: The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Nikhil Goel appellant’s representative M 09810133254
Respondent: Mr. M K Rustagi CPIO through VC M 09821698336
The appellant’s representative stated that he has not received the information requested under queries (i), (ii) & (iv) of the RTI application dated 27/3/2012.
The CPIO stated that:
(a) In query (i) the appellant had requested for video recordings of the proceedings and the same have been submitted to the High Court and are also available with him.
(b) In query (ii) the appellant had sought the medical records which is personal information relating to third party(s) and therefore exempt 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.
(c) In query (iv) the appellant had sought copies of the minutes of meetings, however, the only minutes available on record are dated 22/9/2011 and there is/are no other minutes as confirmed by the then Chairman of the Committee.
The appellant’s representative alleged that the video submitted before the High Court is edited and hence the respondent should confirm about its authenticity. He further stated that as regards the information sought under item (ii) it was not a personal endeavor but the medical examination was conducted during the course of the public hearing and the respondent have informed that some of the third parties have not given their consent but no details have been provided including whether the third party(s) have treated such records as confidential and added that since this was a major alleged accident even larger public interest demands the disclosure of the information. As regards query (iv) he stated that the report of the committee is based on the deliberations of the meeting held on 18th and 19th October 2011 and 8th and 9th November 2011 and the respondent should either provide copies of the minutes or confirm that there is no such information on record. The CPIO requested that the matter may be adjourned to give him an opportunity to make detailed submissions in the matter. The appellant’s representative stated that he would also like to make his submissions.
Interim Decision notice dated 05/12/2013: After hearing both the parties it is decided to grant adjournment and invite written submissions from them detailing their respective stands on the issue at hand, so that full facts are brought on record. Accordingly, both parties should furnish their submissions to the Commission (endorsing a copy to each other) by 31/12/2013 The hearing is adjourned for 16th January, 2014 at 4.00 PM
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 16/01/2014: The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Nikhil Goel appellant’s representative through TC M 09810133254
Respondent: Mr. M K Rustagi CPIO through VC M 09821698336
The respondents vide their submissions dated 24.12.2013 have provided point wise response to the issues raised by the appellant during the previous hearing held on 05.12.2013. It has been clarified by the respondent in their written submission that the proceedings of the committee was video recorded by the office of the Dy. Chief Inspector of Factories, Dindigul, Tamilnadu who was also a member of the fact finding committee and that the respondents are not aware of any information about alleged inauthenticity of the DVDs. In respect of the information about medical records sought by the appellant, the respondent has stated that 54 out of the 75 third parties whose medical information have been sought have refused to share such information stating that the information was given to the technical committee constituted by Govt. of India and relevant matter has already been submitted to the High Court of Madras. It has further been elucidated by the respondent that one party has refused directly stating that the medical records are personal information and submitted to the doctors in confidence while the remaining 53 parties have simply refused to share the medical information with the appellant. The respondent has informed that medical examination of the victims were carried out in isolation and privacy; and the observation of the team of examining doctors have been recorded and forms part of the committee’s report. The previous medical history papers of the victims submitted to the doctors for scrutiny are personal information of the individuals and have been denied by the respondent claiming exemption under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. The respondent CPIO has averred that the only copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 22.09.2011 available on record has already been supplied. It has been elaborated that as per the letter dated 24.10.2011 from the member secretary of the committee, the committee met on 18th and 19th October, 2011 and the report was finalized and sent to the Ministry of Labour on 19.10.2011. The CPIO informed during the hearing that though invited for the committee meetings the appellant failed to turn up for attending the said meetings. The appellant though put to notice was not present. His representative stated on telephone that appropriate orders may be passed based on the submissions and the material on record.
Decision Notice:
The CPIO has averred that he has no information about the alleged inauthenticity of the DVDs. The appellant has merely raised a doubt about the authenticity but not substantiated the same. It is assumed that having been submitted to the Hon’ble High Court, the said DVDs are authentic and verified evidence. As far as the information relating to the medical records of the victims is concerned, it is a well settled position of law that Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act clearly says that disclosure may be refused if the request pertains 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." Thus, personal information including tax returns, medical records etc. cannot be disclosed 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. 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. It is also evident that the Appellant has not established any cause of public interest. Hence, it is held that the medical information of the victims is exempt 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 cannot be disclosed. Since the CPIO’s submissions make it amply clear that the minutes of meeting as available on record have already been supplied to the appellant, there is no further information to be provided. Thus, the Commission is of the opinion that the information, as available on record, with the respondent has either been supplied or is exempt from disclosure. No further directions in this case are required. The Appeal is disposed of on the above terms.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Jagdeep Singh v. M/o Labour & Employment in File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001806/4355