Is wife entitled to seek information regarding officer’s pay slip, gratuity etc. during his lifetime? - CIC: In a private dispute between husband and wife, the protection afforded by Sec 8(1)(j) cannot be lifted unless disclosure is in ‘public interest’
24 Mar, 2021
Is the legally wedded wife is entitled to seek information regarding his pay slip, gratuity etc. during his lifetime? - CIC: In a private dispute between husband and wife, the basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption from disclosure enacted 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. cannot be lifted or disturbed unless the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in ‘public interest’
O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o. the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi seeking following information: -
“Kindly arrange to furnish the following information related to Shri Manjeet Kumar: -
1. Date of joining of Shri Manjeet Kumar in Central board of Excise and Customs.
2. Name of office of first posting of Shri Manjeet Kumar.
3. Name of offices with period spent by Shri Manjeet Kumar from date of joining in para (1) to till date.
4. The copies of request applications of Shri Manjeet Kumar from 01-01 -2014 to till date.
5. The copy of pay slips of Shri Manjeet Kumar for the month of April, 2018.
6. The copy of Form-3 (details of Family members lying attached in personal file) service book of Shri Manjeet Kumar.
7. The information regarding EL/HPL/Commuted Leave/Casual Leave/R.H./any other leave taken by Shri Manjeet Kumar from 01.06.2016 to till date.
8. The name of nominee(s) for gratuity CGEGIS/PF made by Shri Manjeet Kumar.”
2. The CPIO responded on 26-06-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 12-07-2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 09-08- 2018. Thereafter, she filed a second appeal u/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. of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Smt. Sonam Burnwal did not attend the hearing and also could not be contacted at the scheduled time of hearing despite efforts. Mr. Anand Kumar, CPIO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The respondent contended that the information on point nos. 1 to 3 is already available in the public domain. On rest of the points, they have claimed exemption u/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 the RTI Act, 2005, as the disclosure of the third party information pertaining to Shri Manjeet Kumar would cause unwarranted invasion of his privacy.
Decision:
5. Since the appellant is not present to attend the hearing, this Commission takes note of the documents annexed with the 2nd appeal wherein she has expressed her displeasure on not providing the information.
6. Primarily, the legal issue to be decided herein is whether the appellant claiming to be the legally wedded wife of Shri Manjeet Kumar is entitled to seek information regarding his pay slip, gratuity etc. during his lifetime. In this regard, it is apt to mention the decision dated 01-07-2009 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 803/2009 titled as Vijay Prakash v. UOI & others wherein it has been clarified that in a private dispute between husband and wife, the basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption from disclosure enacted 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. cannot be lifted or disturbed unless the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in ‘public interest’. In the matter at hand, the appellant has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought is for larger public purpose. Accordingly, the contention put forth by the CPIO is being upheld. However, the CPIO is directed to provide a specific web-link to the appellant w.r.t. point nos. 1 to 3, within a period of 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Information Commissioner
Citation: Sonam Burnwal v. O/o. the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi in Second Appeal No. CIC/CCPDL/A/2018/153662, Date of decision: 22-01-2021