Central Information Commission
Dr.Naresh Kundra vs Indian Overseas Bank on 21 March, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000342/17862
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000342
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Dr. Naresh Kundra (MBBS, MD)
Child Specialist
N.D.179 Bikrampura,
Jalandhar, Punjab
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Indian Overseas Bank Central office 763, Anna Salai, Chennai, Tamil Nadu RTI application filed on : 08/10/2010 PIO replied : 08/11/2010 First Appeal : 26/09/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 04/11/2011 Second Appeal received on : 24/01/2012 Information Sought:
Provide the following information related Mr Sham Sunder Garg s/o Late Sh Sardari Lal Garg R./o Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar
1. Kindly mention the date, month and the year in which he took retirement under voluntary retirement scheme and from which branch of Indian overseas bank.
2. Kindly give full details of the total money given to him at the time of voluntary retirement please give details under which heads how much money was given to him. Was the T D S cut and how much was the amount of total tax deducted at that time.
3. Is he receiving pension from the bank kindly give monthly details of pension received by him since the date of his retirement till today.(each month separately)
4. Kindly give details of the stations at which he worked during his service in the bank and at what rank he worked at the various stations during his service please give details of the ranks at which he worked (give time period of each rank)
5. Was he ever accused for any embezzlement or fraud or any indiscipline or any other crime whatever during his entire service in Indian overseas bank. Please give details.
6. Was he on any long medical leave during his job and what the medical cause of those leaves was?
Reply of the CPIO:
Your information request on personal and official details of one Sr L Sham Sunder Garg vlz.,Termirial Benefits, Tax deduction details, Service details, Disciplinary action Medical leave etc., with no ostensible relations to any public interest or pubic activity. Therefore, In the present circumstances, the Information, if available, formed the personal Information of others and therefore exempted for disclosure under Sec 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.Page 1 of 3
Grounds for the First appeal:
Information has been denied by the CPIO Order of the FAA:
FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Not satisfied with the decision of the CPIO and FA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Dr. Naresh Kundra on video conference from NIC-Jalandhar Studio; Respondent: Absent;
The appellant has sought various information which has been denied by the PIO claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission does not agree that the information sought by the Appellant us covered by the exemptions of Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act for the reasons given below.
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 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 Commission also points out that PIOs should test refusal under Section 8(1)(j) with the proviso which Page 2 of 3 states that, "provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or the State legislature shall not be denied to any person". PIOs would realize that most of the information hence would have to be given to the Appellants and cannot be denied under Section 8(1)(j).
The Commission does not accept the exemption claimed by the PIO and rules that all the information sought the appellant except the "causes of medical leave" shall be provided to the appellant as per the records.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant before 15 April 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 21 March 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG) Page 3 of 3