Central Information Commission
Chhavi Saini vs Department Of Posts on 25 February, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/POSTS/A/2021/101545
Chhavi Saini ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Posts,
O/o Supdt. Of Post offices,
Sikar Division, RTI Cell, Sikar - 332001,
Rajasthan. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23/02/2022
Date of Decision : 23/02/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13/10/2020
CPIO replied on : 27/10/2020
First appeal filed on : 28/10/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 27/11/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07/12/2020
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.10.2020 seeking the following information:
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 27.10.2020 stating as follows:
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.10.2020. FAA's order dated 27.11.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: G S Shekhawat, Supdt. of Post office & CPIO present through audio- conference.
The Commission at the outset apprised the Appellant that pension related records of third party as sought by her through the instant RTI Application stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In response to it, the 2 Appellant stated that she has sought information of her father which ought to be furnished to her by the CPIO.
No oral submissions were forthcoming from the CPIO during hearing. However, the Commission remarked that the CPIO vide written submission dated 15.02.2022 has reiterated the averred reply and has also annexed a copy of the objection letter of concerned third party under Section 11 of RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of facts on record observes that the CPIO has appropriately denied the pension related details of third party to the Appellant under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act after seeking consent of said third party by invoking Section 11 of RTI Act, who denied to divulge his personal information. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein while explaining the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; 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.The following was thus held:
"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..."
(Emphasis Supplied) 3 In view of the above, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter and reply of the CPIO is upheld.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) नहािन) नहािन Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4