Delhi High Court - Orders
Krishan Kumar Yadav vs Chief Information Commissioner ... on 2 June, 2022
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9131/2022
KRISHAN KUMAR YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Shukla and Mr. Sayantani
Basak, Advs.
versus
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER CENTRAL
INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
ORDER
% 02.06.2022 CM APPL. 27477/2022 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application shall stand allowed.
W.P.(C) 9131/2022 The Central Information Commissioner has denied the disclosures as were sought holding that the particulars were personal in character and that the respondent had denied granting consent.
The issue raised here would appear to be settled in light of the decision rendered by this Court in CPIO, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal and Another [2009 SCC OnLine Del 2714] which reads thus:-
"77. The scheme of the Act, visualizes certain exemptions from information disclosure. Section 8 lists these exemptions; it opens with a non obstante Clause, signifying the intention that irrespective of the rights of the information seeker, in regard to matters listed under that provision, the information providers can justifiably withhold access to the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:03.06.2022 19:54:58 information seeker the record, information or queries sought for by him. Section 8(1)(j) says that disclosure may be refused if the request pertains 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."
78. If, however, the information applicant can show sufficient public interest in disclosure, the bar (preventing disclosure) is lifted, and after duly notifying the third party (i.e. the individual who is concerned with the information or whose records are sought) and after considering his views, the authority can disclose it.
79. The right to access public information, that is, information in the possession of State agencies and governments, in democracies is an accountability measure empowering citizens to be aware of the actions taken by such state "actors". This transparency value, at the same time, has to be reconciled with the legal interests protected by law, such as other fundamental rights, particularly the fundamental right to privacy. Certain conflicts may underlie particular cases of access to information and the protection of personal data, arising from the fact that both rights cannot be exercised absolutely in all cases. The rights of all those affected must be respected, and no single right must prevail over others, except in clear and express circumstances. To achieve these objectives, and resolve the underlying the tension between the two (sometimes) conflicting values, the Act reveals a well-defined list of 11 kinds of matters that cannot be made public, under Section 8(1)(j). There are two types of information seen as exceptions to access; the first usually refers to those matters limited only to the State in protection of the general public good, such as national security, international relations, confidentiality in Cabinet meetings, etc. The second class of information with state or its agencies, is personal data of individual citizens, investigative processes, or confidential information disclosed by artificial or juristic entities, like corporations, etc. Individuals' personal data is protected by the laws of access to confidential data and by privacy rights. Often these guarantees-- right to access information, and right to privacy, occur at the same regulatory level. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, through Article 19 articulates the right to information; Article 12, at the same time, protects the right to privacy:
"no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:03.06.2022 19:54:58
80. There can be no doubt that the Act is premised on disclosure being the norm, and refusal, the exception. As noticed, besides the exemptions, nondisclosure is also mandated in respect of information relating to second schedule institutions. Though by Section 22, the Act overrides other laws, the opening non obstante clause in Section 8 ("notwithstanding anything contained in this Act") confers primacy to the exemptions, enacted under Section 8. Clause (j) of Sub-section (1) embodies the exception of information in the possession of the public authority which relates to a third party. Simply put, this exception is that if the information concerns a third party (i.e. a party other than the information seeker and the information provider), unless a public interest in disclosure is shown, information would not be given; information may also be refused on the ground that disclosure may result in unwarranted intrusion of privacy of the individual. Significantly, the enactment makes no distinction between a private individual third party and a public servant or public official third party."
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to address further submissions.
List on 17.11.2022.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
JUNE 2, 2022 / SU Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:03.06.2022 19:54:58