Central Information Commission
Narendra Kumar Sharma vs Indian Institute Of Management (Iim), ... on 12 November, 2018
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.:- CIC/IIMAD/A/2017/604230-BJ
Mr Narendra Kumar Sharma
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Indian Institute of Management
Ahemdabad, Vastrapur
Ahemdabad - 380015
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.11.2018
Date of Decision : 12.11.2018
Date of RTI application 21.06.2017
CPIO's response 23.06.2017
Date of the First Appeal 26.06.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 14.07.2017
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding whether Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma passed out from IIM-A and related academic credentials. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 23.06.2017 stated that the graduation status of a student was his personal information and on account of confidentiality clause, they cannot disclose the name, address, pass/fail or personal details of students without their written permission. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 14.07.2017 concurred with the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Samir Sheth, Deemed PIO/ Mgr. (PGP Prog.) through VC;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Prashant Tiwari, Network Engineer NIC studio at Dausa confirmed the absence of the Appellant. The Respondent submitted that the Page 1 of 4 information held and available with the Public Authority had already been provided by the CPIO / FAA. Moreover, no larger public interest warranting the disclosure of information was justified by the Appellant. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 06.11.2018, wherein it was stated that as per their record, Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma had not been registered for their PGP for the 2008-11 batch.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 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 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."
Page 2 of 47. "....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 referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was 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."
Furthermore, 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.
The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the matter of Kunche Durga Prasad and Anr. vs. Public Information Officer, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and Ors. W.P. No. 443 of 2010 dated 20.01.2010 had held as under:
10. The 2nd petitioner is not able to state as to how the copies of qualification certificates of the selected candidates have any characteristics of public activity or partake public interest. The aggrieved parties including the 1st petitioner have already approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 17355 of 2008. Such of the selected candidates who are impleaded in that writ petition would certainly have to defend themselves. Any direction to the respondents herein to furnish the testimonials of the selected candidates to the petitioners would have its own impact upon the pleadings or the stands which the parties to the pending proceedings may take. It may appear to be enterprising or tempting for any one to have access to every possible information for an individual whether it relates to an individual or not. The freedom of an individual to have access to the information cannot be projected to such an extent as to invade the rights of others. Further, Section 6(2) of the Act cannot be read in isolation, nor can be interpreted to mean that an applicant can seek, every information relating to any one. Just as he cannot be compelled to divulge the purpose for which he needs the information, he must respects the right of the other man to keep the facts relating to him, close to his chest, unless compelled by law to disclose the same. It is relevant to mention that even where an individual is placed Page 3 of 4 under obligation to speak, the law can only draw adverse inference from his failure or refused to speak but cannot go further to invade his privacy or private life.
11. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the view taken by the respondents conflicts with the very spirit of Section 6(2) of the Act. This contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that Section 8 of the Act, on one hand, and the Section 6 of the Act, on the other hand, operate in different and distinct fields. Though Section 6(2) of the Act enables every individual to seek information without disclosing the purpose, the information that can be furnished to him is subject to the restrictions placed under Section 8 of the Act. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the impugned orders."
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Appeal stands 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: 12.11.2018
Page 4 of 4