Central Information Commission
Mr.Sawai Paras Pondurang vs Department Of Atomic Energy on 16 January, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003053/16857
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003053
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Sawai Paras Pandurang,
R/o: House No.27/C/129, Sai Nagar,
Opp. to Sherkhane Petrol Pump,
Yedshi Road, Osmanabad Dist.,
Osmanabad - 413501.
Respondent : Mr. S. K. Srivastava
Public Information Officer & Dy. CE(Projects) Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai - 400094.
RTI application filed on : 21/06/2011 PIO replied : 28/06/2011 First appeal filed on : 12/09/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 27/09/2011 Second Appeal received on : 05/10/2011 Information Sought:
1. Please give me the total vacancies of physical handicap person in NT-HRM 2011. Recruitment (category-wise).
2. Please give the NT-HRM 2011 person with disability qualify for written test person wise.
3. Please give the present PWD candidate list category wise.
4. Please give the mark list Total PWD candidate.
5. Please give the seat No.10497 Question Paper and Answer Sheet with marks.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
1. It is observed that you have sent application fee of Rs. 10/- in the form of court fee stamp along with your aforesaid application which is not acceptable under Right to Information Act 2005.
2. It is, therefore requested to please forward an application fee of Rs. 10/- in the form of Indian Postal Order/Demand Draft drawn in favour of Manager (F&A), Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply was provided to the appellant by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
1. Sh. Sawai Paras Pandurang vide his letter dated 21.06.2011 had requested CPIO, NPCIL the information regarding. NT-HRM-2011 Recruitment.
2. CPIO, vide his letter No. NPCIL/VSB/CPIO/l 15l/HQs./2011/896 dated 12.92011 provided the information to the Appellant.Page 1 of 3
3. Sh. Sawai Paras Pandurang preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Authority vide his letter dated 25.08.2011 for not providing the information by CPIO.
4. The delay in providing the information by CPIO, NPCIL vide his letter No. NPCI L/VSB/ CPIO/1151/HQs./2011/806 dated 12.09.2011 (copy enclosed) is due to non-receipt of application fee under RTI from the Appellant.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory Information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Sawai Paras Pandurang on video conference from NIC-Osmanabad Studio; Respondent: Mr. S. K. Srivastava, PIO & Dy. CE(Projects) on video conference from NIC-Mumbai Studio;
The PIO has refused to give information on query-4 claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
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 Page 2 of 3 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.
In view of this the disclosure of marks given by a Public Authority to candidates during a process of selection cannot be considered an invasion on the privacy of an individual and would have to be disclosed.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information as per available on the records to the Appellant on query-4 before 05 February 2012. 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 16 January 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG) Page 3 of 3