Central Information Commission
Akshay Kumar vs Insurance Regulatory And Development ... on 3 December, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.(s):- CIC/IRADA/A/2018/619643-BJ+
CIC/IRADA/A/2018/130652-BJ
Mr. Akshay Kumar
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Executive Director (Gen)
Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India
Survey No. 115/1, Financial District
Nanakramguda, Hyderabad - 500032
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02.12.2019
Date of Decision : 03.12.2019
Date of RTI application 19.01.2018
(mentioned in 2nd
Appeal)
CPIO's response 22.02.2018
Date of the First Appeal 19.03.2018
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil / 15.05.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 19 points regarding the recruitment exercise for the post of AGM (Actuary); copy of the noting prepared by HR/ Concerned Department about reservation for all categories roster points across all cadres for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017, Total no. of applications received for the post of AGM (Actuarial), total no. of applications rejected at the scrutiny stage for the post; etc. The CPIO, vide his letter dated 22.02.2018 provided a pointwise reply to the Appellant denying disclosure on Points 10, 11 and 14 u/s 8 (1) (d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and Point 12 u/s 8 (1) (e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the CPIO's reply, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record before this Commission.Page 1 of 7
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Akshay Kumar through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Someshwar Rao, Manager, Mr. Suresh Mathur, ED and Mr. Deepak Gaikwad, DGM and CPIO, IRDA, Hyderabad through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the CPIO did not reply to the RTI application within the period stipulated under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. While acknowledging that his First Appeal was decided by the FAA vide order dated 23.05.2018, the Appellant specifically referred to points 01, 02, 10, 11 and 17 of his RTI application and stated that the roster for vacancies for various category across all cadres in the IRDAI in the year 2015-2017 was not provided. Similarly, the notings prepared by the HR/ concerned department issuing the two corrigendums dated 04.10.2017 and 16.10.2017 with approval of the competent authority, total number of applicants who appeared for the interview for the post of AGM (Actuarial), names of selected candidates and their educational qualification and roster points for all the cadres in the Authority were not disclosed. The Appellant also submitted that a matter challenging the selection procedure was presently sub-judice before the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that point wise information as sought by the Appellant was provided. The First Appeal was also decided vide order dated 23.05.2018. As regards the roster details sought in point no. 01, the Respondent submitted that the link of the website where the information could be accessed was provided to the Appellant. With regard to point no. 02, 10 and 17, the Respondent stated that the copy of the relevant records was provided to the Appellant. As regards point no. 11, the Respondent stated that the same pertained to a Third Party and no larger public interest warranting its disclosure was justified by the Appellant. On being queried if the list of candidates who had appeared for the recruitment for the post of AGM (Actuarial) and names of successful candidates was disclosed to the Appellant, no satisfactory response was offered by the Respondent.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only Page 2 of 7 refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Commission further observed that information regarding the list of candidates appearing for the interview for the post of AGM (Actuarial) and names of selected candidates should be suo motu disclosed in the public domain for the ease and convenience of all the concerned. In this context, the Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public seeking information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary Page 3 of 7 information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption."
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on:
21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
However, with regard to disclosure of personal information relating to selection of Third Party candidates, the Commission observed that the same was exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this context, the Commission observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Page 4 of 7 India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 had held as under:
"13......The performance of an employee/officer in an organization 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 Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the 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."
In Union of India v. R. Jayachandran WP (C) 3406/2012 dated 19.02.2014 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held that passport details, copies of birth certificate and copies of records of educational qualification are personal information, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individuals unless there was an overbearing public interest in favour of disclosure.
In the matter of Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 dated 31.08.2017 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held as under:
"5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc
11) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of the Act.
12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794, 5 it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature;
secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1."
Page 5 of 7Furthermore, in a recent judgement dated 13.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 10044 OF 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 OF 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, had observed as under:
"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:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission instructs the Respondent to suo motu disclose the information pertaining to the roster details of the vacancies reserved for various categories, list of candidates who appeared for the interview for the post of AGM (Actuarial) and candidates selected on their website, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order for the ease and convenience of the public at large.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 03.12.2019
Page 6 of 7
Copy to:
1- Chairman, IRDAI, 3rd Floor, Parisrama Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad - 500004 Page 7 of 7