Central Information Commission
Mr.Naval Kishor Verma vs Bank Of India on 13 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/2012/000162/17650
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000162
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Naval Kishore Verma
C/o: Gajender Verma, Amrud Bagan,
Ratu Road, P.O: Hehal, Ranchi,
Distt.-Ranchi - 834001.
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Bank of India (Jharkhand Gramin Bank), O/o The General Manager, Head Off: Rajendra Place, 5, Main Road, Ranchi - 834001.
RTI application filed on : 02/07/2011 PIO replied : 29/07/2011 First appeal filed on : 27/08/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 28/09/2011 Second Appeal received on : 09/01/2012 Information Sought:
1. In the daily newspaper dated 10.04.2011, how many candidates applied for the post of Asst. Courier against the advertisement published in regard of it.
2. How many candidates are invited for the literate out of received applicant's application?
3. How many applications were rejected out of total applications received? Provide the photocopy of the list and the reason for rejection of application.
4. Was any information provided to all those candidates whose applications are being rejected? If yes, provide the photocopy.
5. Provide the list of those candidates who are selected for post out of received applications.
6. On what basis the changes are done in the age published in the newspaper.
7. Provide the attendance register in respect of details of those employees who are working on daily wages in branch of the Bank.
8. According to Employees Provident Fund Provision Act 1952, is contribution being done from the employees working on daily wages. If it is not done, then which officer is responsible for this.
9. Provide the details branch & office wise in regard to the payment paid to the workers who are working on daily wages.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
1. Total candidates are 1299. No such register is available.
2. Literate candidates invited are 610. Kindly pay Rs.200/- for list.
3. The application no.689 was rejected. No information is available regarding it.
4. Not provided.Page 1 of 3
5. 9 candidates are selected. The application letter of these applicants cannot be provided to you under Section 8(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
6. This posting was done according to 1998's posting and rules of promotion. For it, the minimum age is 18 years and maximum is 26 years.
7. The section which you described here, no information is with us regarding it. The information will be made available to you on clarify of the query.
8. The section which you described here, no information is with us regarding it. The information will be made available to you on clarify of the query.
9. No record found. In regard to this a letter dated 18.07.2011 gas been issued from the Bank.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory reply was provided to the appellant by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"The information available is provided to you who are not in the record that cannot be made available to you".
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
"Unsatisfactory and incomplete information by PIO & FAA".
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Naval Kishore Verma;
Respondent: Absent;
The PIO has given certain information but the appellant points out that in the following matters information has not been provided:
1- Query-1: The Appellant had sought copy of Register in which the list of appellants made. Even if no register has been made the list of applicants would certainly be available on a computer or in some other format. The PIO is directed to send of list of applicants to the Appellant. 2- Query-2: List of people invited for interview has not been provided. The PIO had demanded Rs.200/- without specifying the number of pages. From the order of the FAA it appears that the information is in 56 pages. In view of this the PIO should have only demanded Rs.112/- @ of Rs.2/- per page from the Appellant and the demand for Rs.200/- is without any basis in the law. The PIO will now provide this list free of cost to the Appellant. 3- Qeury-3: No information has been provided. The PIO is directed to provide the complete specific information.
4- Query-5: The information has been denied claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(j). 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.
Page 2 of 3Various 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 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. The claim for exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the PIO is not upheld.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information on the four points as directed above to the Appellant before 10 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 13 March 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(DE) Page 3 of 3