Central Information Commission
Mr.S. Balaji vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 15 July, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001462/8540
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001462
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. S Balaji,
Deputy Manager,
M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd, No.25/26,
Prince Towers, IV Floor, College Road, Chennai -
600006.
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Regional PF Commissioner, EPFO 31, Filtered Road, Vellore - 632001.
RTI application filed on : 28/12/2009 PIO replied : 09/02/2010 First appeal filed on : 04/02/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 18/03/2010 Second Appeal received on : 16/04/2010 Information Sought: The Appellant sought information regarding -
• Furnish the necessary details and guidance regarding the case No. 230/06 U/S 279 and 337 IPC on 18/04/2006 and the Accident Claims Tribunal, Vellore vide MCOP No. 50/07. • The details of the salary paid to late Mr. G Raghupathy while working as General Manager in M/s Ganga Food Products Ltd as per the records of the Public Authority.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
The Information cannot be provided as the application proposes a violation of Section 8 (e) and 8 (j) of the RTI Act.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory Information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Appeal dismissed by the FAA.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory Information provided by the PIO and dismissal of appeal by the FAA. Issues framed:
Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing on July 12, 2010. However, neither party appeared. The Appellant and the Respondent have also provided their written submissions which were received by the Commission on July 14, 2010. From a perusal of the papers, the 2 main issues that emerge are:
A. Whether the Appellant is a "citizen" within the meaning of Section 3 of the RTI Act; and B. Whether the information sought by the Appellant relates to personal information of a third party, which is exempted from being provided per Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Observations:
A. Whether the Appellant is a "citizen" within the meaning of Section 3 of the RTI Act.
Section 3 of the RTI Act, which stipulates that all citizens shall have the right to information, confers such right on a distinct individual who is a citizen of India. In the instant case, the mere fact that the Appellant has signed his name in the capacity of Deputy Manager of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited ("BAGIC") does not mean that he has not filed the same as a citizen of India and cannot seek information under the RTI Act. The Appellant while filing the RTI application as a citizen is free to inform the PIO about his designations and positions that he might be holding. The Commission is of the view that so long the RTI application is signed by an individual who is a citizen of India, then notwithstanding the capacity in which such application is filed, it shall be valid. The Appellant, therefore, is a "citizen" within the meaning of Section 3 of the RTI Act. Hence, the contention of the FAA/ PIO that the Appellant is a corporate entity seeking information in the guise of a "citizen" is devoid of any merit and is liable to be rejected.
B. Whether the information sought by the Appellant relates to personal information of a third party, which is exempted from being provided per Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act: Section 8(1)(e) exempts from disclosure 'information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information'. The traditional definition of a "fiduciary" is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of that relationship. Another important characteristic of such a relationship is that the information must be given by the holder of the information out of his own choice.
It follows that any information provided in discharge of a statutory requirement such as the requirements specified under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the schemes framed thereunder which include opening of a PF account, compulsory contribution to the same by the employer and the employee, etc cannot be considered to have been given in a fiduciary relationship. In other words, the particulars of the salary paid to late Mr. G. Raghupathy while working as General Manager in M/s Ganga Food Products Ltd. provided in furtherance to the EPF Act cannot be considered as information available to the EPFO in a fiduciary capacity. Therefore, the exemption under Section 8(1)(e) relied upon by the PIO and upheld by the FAA is liable to be rejected.
Exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act: Section 8(1)(j) exempts the disclosure of 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 be "personal information". In common parlance, the adjective "personal" may be ascribed to an attribute which applies to an individual and not to an institution, organisation or a corporate. Further, the phrase "disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest" means that the information must have some relationship to a public activity or interest. Various public authorities while performing their functions routinely ask for "personal" information from citizens. This clearly comes within the purview of a public activity. In other words, except for information which is obtained by a public authority while using extraordinary powers, the disclosure of information which is routinely collected by a public authority and routinely provided by an individual would not be an invasion on the privacy of the individual.
In the instant case, the Appellant has sought information in relation to the particulars of the salary paid to late Mr. G. Raghupathy while working as General Manager in M/s Ganga Food Products Ltd. The amounts deposited in a PF fund are partly statutory as a percentage of salary and there could also be a voluntary deposit. The voluntary contribution and withdrawals from the PF fund are clearly matters of personal choice just as an amount deposited in and withdrawn from a bank is a route for savings. According to the Commission, the disclosure of information pertaining to an individual's PF account, the contributions made thereto, etc would certainly be an unwarranted invasion on the privacy of an individual and be protected from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
However, on the death of the individual, the said protection would not be available and consequently, information pertaining to an individual's PF account and details in relation to the same may be disclosed. It must be noted that on the death of an individual, all information pertaining to him may not be disclosed and certain information may continue to be protected by his right to privacy even after death. However, the Commission is of the view that information pertaining to an individual's PF account, contributions made from his salary, etc does not come within the ambit of information that continues to remain protected from disclosure even after the death of the individual and can be disclosed under the RTI Act since such disclosure cannot be considered an invasion on the privacy of a person who is dead.
Further, a claim for larger public interest being served by the disclosure of such information has been made by the Appellant. It is contended that the disclosure of such information will expedite the settlement of an ongoing dispute between the parties, which would benefit the family of the victim as well as safeguard the interest of public money held by BAGIC. The Commission is of the view that the Appellant's argument that giving information would help to resolve ongoing disputes is a specious argument. It is not for the Commission to decide how disputes would get resolved and is only able to understand that disclosure of information may result in outcomes which would be of advantage to one or the other side. Therefore, the argument that disclosure of the information sought by the Appellant would serve a larger public interest is not accepted.
However, the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act claimed by the PIO and upheld by the FAA is devoid of merit and is being rejected by the Commission. Thus the Commission holds that the exemptions under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act claimed by the PIO and the FAA are not applicable in the instant case for the reasons given above. Decision announced on July 15, 2010:
The Appeal is allowed. The PIO is directed to provide all the information available with it sought by the Appellant before August 10, 2010. If any of the information sought by the Appellant is not held by the public authority, this will be stated.
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 July 15, 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM)