Central Information Commission
Shri.Aravind A Datar vs Bank Of Baroda on 23 August, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001251/SG/14204
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001251/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Arvind A. Datar
801, Devi Darshan CHS Ltd.
Tembi Naka, Thane - 400 601
Respondent : Mr. Sri Kumar, Chif Manager (Legal)
Mr. Nitin Mahajan, DGM & Central Public Information officer, Bank of Baroda Mumbai metropolitan region, Baroda house, S. V Road Jogeshwari (west), Mumbai RTI application filed on : 20/02/2010 PIO replied on : 20/03/2010; 05/04/2010 First Appeal filed on : 03/05/2010 First Appellate Authority order on : 01/06/2010 Second Appeal received on : 27/08/2010 SL. Information Sought a. Please provide information in respect to loans /credit facilities granted to M/s Strategic Press (India) P Ltd and Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) enquiry. Whether CVC enquiry was initiated in respect of loans / credit facilities granted to M/s Strategic Press P Ltd. , by Bank of Baroda against employees / officers / any other person of Bank of Baroda.
b. Please give the CVC enquiry number.
c. Please provide the information whether CVC enquiry Number 61/CDI /DB /54 was in respect of the said loans / credit facilities granted to M/s Strategic Press (India) P. Ltd? d. Please provide the reasons for CVC enquiry was initiated by the Bank of Baroda in respect of the said loans granted to Strategic Press P. Ltd.
e. Please provide the employees any other person of Bank of Baroda against CVC was initiated by Bank of Baroda in respect of the said loans granted to Strategic P.Ltd. f. Please provide information what were the findings and conclusions of the C V C in respect to each employees any other person.
g. Please provide what disciplinary action was taken by Bank of Baroda against employees any other person who were guilty in CVC enquiry.
PIO's reply:
Information has to be collected from various offices of the bank and hence some time is required for compiling the information.
On 5/4/2010 the PIO informed the appellant that information on queries a), c) and d) are not seeking information as defined in Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. As regards b), e), f) and g) the appellant should approach CVC, since it is part of their record.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Reply of the PIO was dissatisfactory.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
According to the orders of FAA the information provided by PIO is appropriate.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Information furnished by the PIO & FAA's order was dissatisfactory.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. Arvind A. Datar on video conference from NIC-Thane Studio; Respondent : Mr. Sri Kumar, Chif Manager (Legal) on behalf of Mr. Nitin Mahajan, DGM & Central Public Information officer on video conference from NIC-Mumbai Studio; The respondent states that some of the information sought by the Appellant is the matter or CVC investigation and hence the information should be sought from the CVC. He also states that the Debt has been assigned to Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC) and hence divulging the information would be contrary to the confidentiality agreement which they have with ARC. The respondent also states that information relating to inquiries conducted against Bank Employees should be exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
RTI is a fundamental right of citizens and refusal to give the information can only be on the basis of exemption under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Any agreements undertaken by a Public Authority which claim to guarantee confidentiality of certain information have to be subject to the provisions of the RTI Act. Infact after the advent of the RTI Act such confidentiality agreements cannot be held to be valid. The Commission has to consider whether the reports of inquiries against Bank officers can be considered under Section 8(1)(j).
Under Section 8 (1) (j) information which has been exempted is defined as: "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:"
To qualify for this exemption the information must satisfy the following criteria:
1. It must be personal information.
Words in a law should normally be given the meanings given in common language. In common language we would ascribe the adjective 'personal' to an attribute which applies to an individual and not to an Institution or a Corporate. From this it flows that 'personal' cannot be related to Institutions, organisations or corporates. Hence Section 8 (1) (j) cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organisations or corporates.
The phrase 'disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest' means that the information must have been given in the course of a Public activity. Various Public authorities in performing their functions routinely ask for 'personal' information from Citizens, and this is clearly a public activity. When a person applies for a job, or gives information about himself to a Public authority as an employee, or asks for a permission, licence or authorisation, all these are public activities. Also when a Citizen provides information in discharge of a statutory obligation this too is a public activity.
We can also look at this from another aspect. The State has no right to invade the privacy of an individual. There are some extraordinary situations where the State may be allowed to invade the privacy of a Citizen. In those circumstances special provisions of the law apply;- usually with certain safeguards. Therefore where the State routinely obtains information from Citizens, this information is in relationship to a public activity and will not be an intrusion on privacy.
Certain human rights such as liberty, freedom of expression or right to life are universal and therefore would apply uniformly to all human beings worldwide. However, the concept of 'privacy' is a cultural notion, related to social norms, and different societies would look at these differently. Therefore referring to the UK Data protection act or the laws of other countries to define 'privacy' cannot be considered a valid exercise to constrain the Citizen's fundamental Right to Information in India. Parliament has not codified the right to privacy so far, hence in balancing the Right to Information of Citizens and the individual's Right to Privacy the Citizen's Right to Information would be given greater weightage. The Supreme of India has ruled that Citizens have a right to know about charges against candidates for elections as well as details of their assets, since they desire to offer themselves for public service. It is obvious then that those who are public servants cannot claim exemption from disclosure of charges against them or details of their assets. Given our dismal record of misgovernance and rampant corruption which colludes to deny Citizens their essential rights and dignity, it is in the fitness of things that the Citizen's Right to Information is given greater primacy with regard to privacy.
Therefore we can state that disclosure of information such as assets of a Public servant, -which is routinely collected by the Public authority and routinely provided by the Public servants,- cannot be construed as an invasion on the privacy of an individual. There will only be a few exceptions to this rule which might relate to information which is obtained by a Public authority while using extraordinary powers such as in the case of a raid or phone tapping.
The information regarding inquiry reports cannot be considered to be personal information which is not the matter of public activity. Besides since the supreme court has decided that assets owned those who want to be public servants as also all cases against them must be known to all citizens, such information regarding public servants have to be disclosed under the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information which is available on the records to the Appellant before 15 September 2011. In case any information is not available on the records the PIO will inform the Appellant accordingly. This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 23 August 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ved)