Central Information Commission
Mr. M. N. Hasan vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 3 February, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003579/17984
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003579
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. M. N. Hasan
R/o: IIT Hospital, IIT Campus,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110016.
Respondent (1) : Mr. Manish Chauhan,
CPIO & Director (RTI), Ministry of External Affairs, #2025, 'A' Wing, J.N. Bhawan, New Delhi-110011 (2) Mr. Vivek Jeph PIO & US Haj Ministry of External Affairs, Haj Cell ISIL Building, Bhagwandas Road, Opposite Supreme Court, New Delhi;
RTI application filed on : 04/10/2010 PIO replied : 31/12/2010 First appeal filed on : 12/11/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 18/01/2011 Second Appeal received on : 13/12/2011 Information Sought:
1. List of candidate (employees) selected for temporary deputation to JEDDAH in the year 2010, as Assistant Haj Officer and Haj Assistants with their name of employer and their designation.
2. List of Medical and Paramedical candidate selected for Medical Mission to JEDDAH in the year 2010 and with their name of employer and their designation.
3. Kindly send photocopy of Application form, Declaration Form, and Forwarding letter granted by JMI University for Mr. NAJAM, P.A. selected from JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY, New Delhi for temporary deputation to JEDDAH in the year 2010.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
1. Lists of Assistant Haj Officers and Haj Assistants selected for deputation for Haj 2010 are attached.
2. Lists of doctors and para-medical staffs selected for deputation for Haj 2010 are also attached.
3. Information sought pertains to a third party and his personal details. The consent of the third party is being obtained as provided under Section 11 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply was provided to the appellant by the PIO.Page 1 of 3
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"After consultation with the third party, I have to convey that this information cannot be shared with the applicant under Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005."
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory Information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Khursheed Ahmed representing Mr. M. N. Hasan;
Respondent (1): Mr. Manish Chauhan, CPIO & Director (RTI); Mr. Mahabir Singh Kasana, Advocate; Respondent (2): Mr. Moin Akhtar, Attache HAJ on behalf of Mr. Vivek Jeph PIO & US;
The information on query-3 has not been provided by the PIO without assigning any reasons. The FAA has also declared that information is being denied on the grounds of the information being third party as per the provisions of Section-11 of the RTI Act. It is unfortunate that after six years of the RTI Act PIOs and FAAs do not understand Section-11 of the Act. Right to Information is a fundamental right of citizens and information can only be denied based on the exemptions of Section 8(1) or Section 9. Section-11 is a procedural section which requires the PIO to seek the objections of the third party if he intends to given the information and the information had been given in confidence by the third party. After a third party objects the PIO has to keep the objections in view while taking a decision about disclosure. This clearly means that he has to apply his mind and come to a conclusion if the information is exempt as per the provisions of the Act. It is worthwhile noting that Section 11(2) outlines a process of appeal by the third party against a decision of the PIO. If the Act wanted to give a veto to a third party there would have been not need for the third party to appeal.
The Respondent claims that the information sought is exempt 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 Page 2 of 3 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.
In view of this the claims for exemption under Section 8(1)(j) is not upheld.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information to the Appellant as per available records before 25 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 03 February 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG) Page 3 of 3