Central Information Commission
Mr.Chandrashekhar Pandit vs Syndicate Bank on 23 January, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003349/17009
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003349
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Chandrashekhar Pandit H.S.
C/o. Gràhákara Hakkuk Mahitigala
Jagarana Vedike, RNo.9, 2' floor,
Corporation Bldg
Broadway, Hubli 581) 020
Respondent : Mr. M. K. Sripathi
PIO & AGM Syndicate Bank, Personnel Dept., Head Office, Manipal 576104, Dist: Udupi, Karnataka RTI application filed on : 23/08/2011 PIO replied : 03/09/2011 First Appeal : 15/09/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 19/09/2011 Second Appeal received on : 22/11/2011 Information Sought:
Copy of the Memo/ charge sheets issued to Sri Dhananjaya and Sri P.N. Naveenchandra who were working at Basarikatii branch and Hindpur branch respectively in 1991, from the date of their appointments in the bank to 25-8-2011 and the replies given by him to the bank.
CPIO's Reply:
• In this connection, we wish to inform you that RTI Act is not a vehicle to collect information with regard to Disciplinary Action initiated / finalized against employees. Moreover, you are seeking the information of third party personal information. Further, it is observed that the information sought by you do not have any bearing to any public activity or interest. Hence, we are unable to furnish the information by virtue of Sec. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. • In your present request you have quoted CIC order in CIC/SM/A/2011/000001/SG/147171- Appeal N.CIC/SM/A12011/000001!SG order dated 19-08-2011 in the 2 appeal filed by Smt Jayalaxmi. Please note that we have filed writ petition no. 35177/2011 against the said order against Smt. Jayalaxmi and Central Information Commission before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The court has ordered emergent notice to all respondents. We have produced copies of your application in the said writ petition as your application is based on the request of Smt. Jayalaxmi and the order of CIC on that. Since that main order has been appealed against and the matter is sub-judice we are unable to furnish a reply on merit for your request. We therefore request you to wait for the final outcome of the said writ petition. We like to add that if you feel so you may also get yourselves impleaded in the said writ petition.Page 1 of 3
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information has not been provided.
Order of the FAA:
PIO to give fresh reply within 15 working days.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Information was denied.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Chandrashekhar Pandit H.S. on video conference from NIC-Dharwad Studio; Respondent: Mr. M. K. Sripathy, PIO & AGM (P) on video conference from NIC-Udupi Studio;
The PIO has refused to give the information claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority has also upheld this decision. However, the Commission analysis the exemption claimed under Section 8(1)(j) by the PIO.
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 Page 2 of 3 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 the instant case the Appellant has sought information about Memo/Charge Sheet issued to various employees and the replies given by them to the Bank. This is clearly a public activity and cannot be considered to be a matter where disclosure would lead to unwarranted invasion on the privacy of an individual. Actions taken by Banks against their employees are matters of public activity.
The PIO has claimed that a stay has been obtained for an earlier decision of the commission. The Court's stay will apply on a particular decision since no reasons have been given in the stay order.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information sought by the Appellant before 15 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 23 January 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(PG) Page 3 of 3