Central Information Commission
Dipak Ranjan Mukherjee vs Ministry Of Commerce & Industry on 1 November, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MOCMI/A/2023/633735
Dipak Ranjan Mukherjee .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
M/o Commerce & Industry,
Copyright Office, Boudhik
Sampada Bhawan, Plot No. 32,
Sector 12, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22.10.2024
Date of Decision : 30.10.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05.01.2023
CPIO replied on : 27.02.2023
First appeal filed on : 08.05.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 04.07.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11.07.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.01.2023 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 14
"In the matter of: Information about INDIAN PERFORMANCE RIGHTS SOCIETY on it's compliance regarding GOVT. ENQUIRY (DR. DANGEY COMMISSION & REGISTRATION OF IPRS AS COPYRIGHT SOCIETY UNDER THE COPYRIGHT ACT 1957.
1. Whether as per terms of notification of the Ministry of Human Resource Dept. dated 14.08.2015 (No. F-16/4/2012- CRB/Leg.unit) if Dr. Y.P.C. Dangey Commission has submitted any interim report on the enquiry pertaining to IPRS ? If yes, please provide a copy of the said interim report and provide the date when the said report was submitted.
2. Whether as per terms of notification of the Ministry of Human Resource Dept. dated 14.08.2015 (No. F-16/4/2012- CRB/Leg.unit) if Dr. Y.P.C. Dangey Commission has submitted any final report on the enquiry pertaining to IPRS ? If yes, please provide a copy of the said final report and recommendations if any and provide the date when the said report was submitted.
3. Please provide a copy of letter No. F. No. 07-01/2017-CO dated 28.11.2017 issued by the Government to Indian Performance Rights Society.
4. Please provide office records related to remedial compliance of conditions by Indian Performance Rights Society in response to letter No. F. No. 07-01/2017-CO dated 28.11.2017 issued by the Government.
5. Please provide the copy of report submitted by IPRS to the Government in response to compliance of observations made in letter No. F. No. 07-01/2017-CO dated 28.11.2017 issued by the Government.
6. Please mention the date when the report mentioned in paragraph 5 above was submitted to the Government.
7. Pl provide copy of guidelines by Government (if any) to determine tariff scheme by IPRS.
8. Please provide the name and designation of persons of the Copyright office, who had attended any EGM or SGM or AGM of IPRS in 2018.
9. Please provide the date when said members of copyright office attended the EGM or SGM or AGM of IPRS in 2018.Page 2 of 14
10. Whether the tariff scheme of IPRS in 2018 was ratified by the Copyright Registrar, if yes please provide the ratification date and copies of records related to ratification of tariff Scheme of IPRS.
11.Please provide the name and designation of persons of the Copyright office, who had attended any EGM or SGM or AGM of IPRS in 2021.
12.Please provide the date when said members of copyright office attended the EGM or SGM or AGM of IPRS in 2021."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 27.02.2023 stating as under:
"1. In reference to queries no 1,2,4,5 & 6 it is informed that the information sought is related to third party and treated as confidential and a notice under section 11 of RTI Act, 2005 has been issued to third party for its submission regarding whether the information should be disclosed.
2. In regard to query no 3, a copy of letter F. No 07-01/2017-CO is attached with this reply.
3. In regard to query no 7, The procedure is followed as per the Copyright Act, 1957 and Copyright Rules 2013.
4. In regard to queries no 8 to 13, No information/Record available in the office."
The CPIO furnished another reply to the appellant on 17.03.2023 by stating as under:
"...1. In reference to queries no 1,2,4,5 & 6 it is informed that information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and the same is exempted from discloser under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005..."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.05.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 04.07.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Page 3 of 14Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Mr. Chirag, Senior Examiner/CPIO accompanied with Mr. Dheeresh, Examiner of JM &G/ APIO present in person.
Third party (IPRS): Represented by Ms. Deepshikha Sarkar, Advocate present in person.
Respondent submitted that a point-wise reply has already been provided to the appellant by informing him that queries No. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 is related to third party and treated as confidential, therefore, a notice under section 11 of RTI Act has been issued to third party for its submission regarding whether the information should be disclosed. For query No. 3, a copy of letter F. No. 07- 01/2017-CO was given with the reply. At query No. 7, it was informed that the procedure is followed as per the Copyright Act, 1957 and Copyright Rules 2013. Against queries No. 8 to 13, information/record is not available in the office.
Ld. counsel for the third party objected for disclosure of their information. She further sought time to file a detailed written submission pertaining to this case which was granted by the bench.
Post hearing, Ld. counsel of the third party filed a written submission dated 23.10.2024 detailing the factual background of this case, which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:
"...BRIEF BACKGROUND
6. IPRS had received a notice dated February 27, 2023 ("Notice") under Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on March 6, 2023 from the Ld. CPIO, Ministry of Commerce & Industries, Department for Promotion of Industry & Internal Trade, Copyright Office. The said Notice called upon IPRS to make representations pertaining to query number 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 in the RTI Application. A copy of the Notice dated February 27, 2023 is annexed herewith as Annexure "C".Page 4 of 14
7. IPRS made its detailed representation on March 14, 2023, before the Ld. CPIO a copy of the same is annexed to the present submissions and marked as Annexure "D". Thereafter the Ld. CPIO sent a letter dated. March 21, 2023 to IPRS to communicate another letter dated March 17, 2023 sent by the Ld. CPIO to the Applicant. The letter dated March 17, 2023 stated that the information with regard to query number 1,2,3,5 and 6 of the RTI Application was not being provided to the Applicant citing the exemption from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the same would cause unwarranted invasion of IPRS's privacy. A copy of the letter dated March 21, 2023 along with the letter dated March 17, 2023 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure "E".
8. An appeal was preferred against the abovesaid reply of the Ld. CPIO dated March 17, 2023, under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 ("First Appeal"). The said First Appeal was disposed of vide order dated July 3, 2023 by the First Appellate Authority, the Ld. CPIO's decision was upheld by the First Appellate Authority. The order dated July 3, 2023, is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure "F". The present appeal being the second appeal has been filed against the order dated July 3, 2023.
THE APPLICANT HAS SUPRESSED MATERIAL FACTS
9. It is pertinent to bring to the Hon'ble Information Commissioner's knowledge that the Applicant, Sh. Dipak Ranjan Mukherjee is an advocate appearing for the Defendant in a suit for copyright infringement filed by IPRS titled The Indian Performing Right Society Limited v. Vedic Hotels And Resorts Private Limited (Title Suit No. 2/2022) pending before the Commercial Court at Alipore, Kolkata ("Alipore Suit"). This information has been suppressed by the Applicant and is prima facie indicative of his mala fide intentions.
10. The Hon'ble Commercial Court, Alipore vide its order dated December 11, 2023 in the Alipore Suit allowed the ad-interim injunction application filed on behalf of IPRS and restrained the Defendants, ie., the Applicant's client Vedic Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. ("Vedic Hotel") from public performance/communication to the public of the literary and musical works belonging to the repertoire of IPRS in any form, including as part of sound recording, or doing any other act infringing IPRS's copyright in the said works, without obtaining a license from IPRS and paying the authors statutory royalties until the disposal of the suit. A copy of the order dated December 11, 2023 in the Alipore Suit is annexed herewith and filed as Annexure "G".
11. The Applicant on behalf of Vedic Hotels had also filed an application under Section 33A of the Copyright Act, 1957 in the Alipore Suit asking the Hon'ble Page 5 of 14 Commercial Court, Alipore to ascertain and laydown. guidelines under the scope of Section 33A of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Rule 56(3) of the Copyright Rules, 2013 to include rates for actual usage of music by Vedic Hotel being a Hotel/Resort and Restaurants as a user group. However, after IPRS filed its response to the said application, the said application was withdrawn by the Applicant on April 23, 2024. A copy of the order dated April 23, 2024 in the Alipore Suit evidencing the withdrawal is annexed herewith and filed as Annexure "H".
12. The Applicant has suppressed the information that he is the advocate appearing for Vedic Hotel in the Alipore Suit. Such suppression is prima facie indicative of his mala fide intentions. The information being sought by the Applicant/Appellant by the RTI Application is a fishing and roving enquiry to harass IPRS in additional fora and is vexatious. The request for the information sought does not serve any public purpose.
QUERY NO. 1 &2
13. By way of Query No. 1 and 2, the Applicant has sought copies of the interim and final reports of the Dr Y.P.C. Dangey Commission set up on the terms of notification of the Ministry of Human Resource Dept. dated 14.08.2015 (No. F-16/4/2012-CRB/Leg. unit) in case the same were submitted and sought the date of submission of those reports. Before mentioning the reasons as to why the information sought in the queries cannot be disclosed as per law, a brief background about the Dr Y.P.C. Dangey Commission Report is given below:
(a) It is submitted that the Copyright Act, 1957 ("Copyright Act") was amended vide the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, which came into force w.e.f. June 21, 2012 "Amended Act"), Consequently, all copyright societies were required to apply for re-
registration or registration under the Amended Act. IPRS complying with the statutory provisions in the Amended Act, applied for re registration as a copyright society under Section 33 of the Act vide its application dated May 10, 2013, with the Central Government.
(b) Subsequently, the Central Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 33 (5) of the Act read with Rule 50 of the Copyright Rules, 2013, had instituted an inquiry against IPRS. The Central Government, vide Gazette Notification dated August 14, 2015 appointed Dr. Y.P.S. Dangey as the Inquiry Officer to inquire into the allegations against IPRS herein. A copy of Gazette Notification dated August 14, 2015 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 'I'.
Page 6 of 14The Inquiry Officer pursuant to completing the inquiry proceedings submitted his report to the Central Government. This report was never made available to the Parliament or any state legislature as the same we never to tabled. The Central Government thereafter proceeded to grant IPRS a provisional registration vide certificate dated November 25, 2017, as a copyright society under Section 33030 of the Act which authorised IPRS to carry on the copyright business in Musical Works as defined in Section 2 (p) of the Act and Literary Works associated with the Musical Works. Subsequently, a revised certificate of registration under Section 13 (3) of the Art rend with Rule 40 of the Copyright, Rules 2013, in supersession of and in continuation to the above mentioned certificate dated November 26, 2017, was granted on June 08, 2018. A copy of the revised certificate dated June 08, 2018, as granted by the Government of India is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 'J'.
14. The said report cannot be shared with the Applicant for the following reasons:
(a) IPRS was constituted in the year 1960 to protect, monitor, and enforce the rights of its members comprising of Authors Composers & Lyricists) and Owners/Publishers of musical and literary works. The copyrights in the Musical and Literary Works administered by IPRS are owned by Muse Companies/Film Producers, Authors, Composers and or Reciprocal International Sorties. The creation and private ownership of copyright do not involve any instance or question of public funding or be termed a question of public interest Hance any information pertaining to the same in exempt from disclosure.
(b) The disclosure of the information would be instrumental in allowing something which is specifically barred under law.
The information sought in queries no. 1 and 2 include statements made by persons including II'RS representatives) to an Inquiry Commission under The Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. The statements made by any person while giving evidences before any Inquiry Commission cannot be used against him in, any civil or criminal proceeding except a prosecution for giving false evidence-by such statements or any information. As the Applicant is an advocate appearing on the opposite side of IPRS in the Alipore Suit, it is evident that he is seeking the interim and final report of the Dr Y.P.C. Dungey Commission to use the statements made by IPRS as recorded in such reports as evidence against IPRS in the Alipore Suit proceedings This is specifically barred under Section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. 1962.
(d) It is further stated at the outset that disclosure of the information as sought in the Application would be instrumental in allowing something which is specifically barred Page 7 of 14 under law. The information sought in queries no. 1 and 2 of the Application include statements made by persons (including IPRS representatives) to an Inquiry Commission under The Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. It is pertinent to note that as per Section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 "No statement made by a person in the course of giving evidence before the Commission shall subject him to, or be used against him in, any civil or criminal proceeding except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such statement any information." As already mentioned, Applicant Sh. Dipak Ranjan Mukherjee the advocate appearing on the opposite side of IPRS in the Alipore Suit. Hence, it is evident that he is seeking the interim and final report of the Dr Y.P.C. Dangey Commission to use the statements made by IPRS as recorded in the interim and final reports; as evidence against IPRS in the Alipore Suit proceedings, which is specifically barred under Section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.
(e) In case the present appeal is allowed, and the Hon'ble Information Commissioner orders the disclosure of the Report to the Applicant, even after the Government has decided not to make it public or table it in Parliament, it could set a dangerous precedent for any confidential report prepared by a commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. It is important to note that the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 does not require the report of a commission to be made public solely because it was formed due to "public importance." Instead, it includes provisions such as Section 6, which protects individuals from liability for statements made before a commission."
QUERY NO. 315. Query No. 3: Please provide a copy of letter No. F. No. 07-01/2017-CO dated 28.11.2017 issued by the Government to IPRS-The said letter was issued to IPRS to take remedial actions in a time-bound manner and submit a report. The contents of the said letter are confidential in nature and only after IPRS complied with the conditions stipulated under the said letter satisfied the Central Government that it is functioning in a transparent manner complying with Copyright Act, 1957 (as amended until date) and the Copyright Rules, 2013 was it granted a revised certificate of registration under Section 33 (3) of the Copyright Act read with Rule 49 of the Copyright Rules 2013 on 8th June 2018.
16. Query No. 4, 5 and 6: By way of these queries the Applicant has sought office records related to remedial compliance of conditions by IPRS in response to letter No. F. No. 07-01/2017-CO dated 28.11.2017 issued by the Government and a copy of the report submitted by IPRS to the government in response to compliance of Page 8 of 14 observations made in the said letter, along with the date of the report. The response to Query No. 1 and 2 as well Query No. 4, 5 and 6 ought not to be provided to the Applicant for the following reasons.
17. The abovesaid information is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. As per Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, the following information shall not be disclosed as it contains the personal information of third party (IPRS, its members and other persons who would have provided such information during the proceeding of the commission of inquiry) and it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of such third party. Further, no larger public interest has been disclosed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (2012) 13 SCC 61 has held that the statutory exemption under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act must operate as a rule and only in exceptional cases would disclosure be permitted, that too, for reasons to be recorded demonstrating satisfaction to the test of larger public interest. The said judgement is available at page number 18 of the compilation of annexures filed along with the present submissions. The reasons for non-disclosure are more elaborately discussed below:
(a) The information relates to "personal information" The abovesaid reports contain personal information pertaining to IPRS and its workings, including its financial data, information about IPRS's collections, distribution and all such licensing activities of IPRS and other commercially sensitive & private data/dealing between the IPRS members (being natural persons and juristic entities) and the society. The disclosure of such information to the public is likely to cause irreparable harm and injury to IPRS, its members and impede the functioning of the publisher members of IPRS. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal[ (2020) 5 SCC 481] while giving an indicative but not exhaustive list of personal information within the ambit of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act has held that personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available only when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. Financial information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are all personal information as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said judgement is available at page number 37 of the compilation of annexures filed along with the present submissions.
(b) The disclosure has no relationship to any "public activity or interest The disclosure of the abovesaid reports/records serves no public interest, in fact, as brought to the knowledge of your office that Sh. Dipak Ranjan Mukherjee is an advocate appearing for the Defendant/Counterclaimant in the Alipore Suit. Hence, Page 9 of 14 the abovesaid information is being sought by him as a fishing and roving enquiry to defend Vedic Hotels And Resorts Private Limited's infringement before Court and serves a completely private interest for the Applicants' client in a matter that is sub judice. It is pertinent to note that the Ld. Judge of the Commercial Courts at Alipore vide its order dated March 17, 2022, had protected IPRS's interest and directed the Defendant, i.e. the Applicant's client to keep monies in a separate account before a future musical event was organized for which IPRS had sought an injunction. The said judgement is available at page number 165 of the compilation of annexures filed along with the present submissions.
(c) The disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individuals concerned-As IPRS's members consist not only of juristic entities but over 11,000 authors and composers currently, the disclosure of such reports may involve the disclosure of their sensitive personal information. The reports sought by the Applicant include not only confidential and proprietary information of IPRS such as financial data and commercial transactions but also impacts over 11,000 current authors and composers.
(d) The public interest in the disclosure sought does not outweigh the harm or injury, to the protected interest of IPRS nor does larger public interest warrant, disclosure of the information sought by the Applicant. The Applicant is merely seeking information regarding IPRS to put it to any possible use against IPRS in the Alipore Suit. The Applicant has taken the RTI Act route although it has more efficacious remedies available in law which would also provide the IPRS an opportunity to demonstrate that the disclosure of such information has no nexus with the cause being agitated in the Alipore Suit. This is simply because the Applicant's intentions are mala fide and the disclosure of this information would not be allowed by the Hon'ble Court on merits in the Alipore Suit if the Applicant sought discovery of documents and/or interrogatories under Order XI of the CPC, 1908. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Reliance Industries Ltd. vs. Gujrat State Information Commission (2007 SCC OnLine Guj 125) has held that when looking to the provisions of the RTI especially Section 8(j) and proviso to Section 11(1) and looking to the process of disclosing information to the applicant 'relating to or supplied by the third party and treated as confidential by the third party', the RTI Act imposes a duty upon Public Information Officer to arrive at a conclusion that public interest in disclosure outweigh a harm or injury, to the protected interest of such third party, or larger public interest warrants, disclosure of such information, It has been further held that the Public Information Officer while dealing with the information relating to or supplied by the third party, has to constantly bear in mind that the RTI Act does not become a tool in the hands of a busybody to settle a personal score. The said.Page 10 of 14
judgement is available at page number 172 of the compilation of annexures filed along with the present submissions.
(e) The information sought with respect to the interim and final reports of the Dr Y.P.C. Dangey Commission was never made available to the Parliament or any state legislature as the same was never tabled. Hence, since the said reports were never made "public documents" by tabling the same before the Parliament, they cannot be provided to the Applicant as well. The process of making such information available to the Applicant would amount to executive overreach as the Central Government in its wisdom did not deem it fit to make public the contents of the Report, whether interim or final and thereby kept its contents confidential.
18. Although the present appeal pertains to query number 1,2,3, 5 and 6. IPRS submits the information sought in the other queries raised in the Application should not be granted for the following reasons:
(a) Query No. 7: Please provide a copy of guidelines by Government (if any) to determine the tariff scheme by IPRS. The tariff scheme of any registered copyright society has to be formulated by the copyright society in compliance of Section 33A of the Copyright Act, 1956 read with Rule 56 of the Rules which act as "guidelines" for the formation of a tariff scheme. There are no guidelines issued by the Central Government in this regard.
(b) Query No. 8, 9, 11 and 12: Please provide the name and designation of persons of the Copyright Office, who had attended any EGM or SGM or AGM of IPRS in 2018 and 2021. Please provide the date when said members of the copyright office attended the EGM or SGM or AGM of IPRS in 2018 and 2021. The Copyright Act and Rules do not require any person/representative from the Copyright Office to attend the meetings of a copyright society. The meetings of IPRS like any registered copyright society are conducted in accordance with Rule 61 of the Rules. All relevant information pertaining to IPRS's. latest Annual General Meetings are publicly available on IPRS's website at https://iprs.org/52nd-agm-2022/. This includes the notice of the AGM, the Scrutinizer's Report, the Annual Transparency Report, etc. As per Rule 61(9) of the Rules, the Registrar of Copyright or his authorized representative is to be invited as an observer to general body meetings of a copyright society, IPRS informs the Registrar of Copyright about the General Body Meeting (AGM) in advance as required under the law. In any event, the Annual Returns as well as detailed minutes of every IPRS AGM are submitted to the office of the Ld. Registrar of Copyrights. In any event, the IPRS being a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and subsisting as a Company under The Companies Act, 2013 files its accounts, balance sheet etc., as required under the law with the Registrar of Page 11 of 14 Companies, hence the Applicant can inspect such documents by making the requisite payments on the MCA21 portal. This is another indication of the nature of the fishing and roving inquiry being undertaken by the Applicant.
(c) Query No. 10 and 13 Whether the tariff scheme of IPRS in 2018 and 2021 was ratified by the Copyright Registrar, if yes please provide the ratification date and copies of records related to the ratification of tariff Scheme of IPRS. The tariff scheme of any registered copyright society has to be formulated by the copyright society in compliance with Section 33A of the Copyright Act, 1956 and Rule 56 of the Rules. The Copyright Act or Rules do not provide for "ratification" of the tariff scheme of a copyright society and hence these questions are irrelevant and should not be answered by the Ld. CPIO.
19. As the Applicant is an advocate appearing for a party opposite IPRS in the Alipore suit, it is evident that he has filed the present Application in the private interest of his client. Hence, any personal information pertaining to a private body such as IPRS should not be disclosed to the Applicant.
20. We request the Hon'ble Information Commissioner to provide us with the order or decision, so that IPRS may avail remedies available to it prior to the disclosure of the information sought by the Applicant.
Decision:
The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, notes that the main premise of the instant Appeal was denial of information by the Respondent. In response to which, the Respondent replied that since the information sought by the Appellant pertains to personal information of third party, therefore, a letter has been issued to the third party for seeking their consent/objection under Section 11 of the RTI Act. Thereafter, information being exempted from disclosure has been denied to the Appellant under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, after receiving objection letter from the third party in the form of detailed written submission dated 23.10.2024, which is taken on record. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--Page 12 of 14
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxx
(j) 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;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 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.
Page 13 of 14On a query from the bench, replying respondent CPIO informed that the Copyright Act has a provision for filing appeal by any party which is aggrieved. Thus, an alternative efficacious remedy was available under the Copyright Act. The appellant has not clarified his locus qua the subject matter of his RTI application. Respondent further informed that the appellant is not an affected party in the matter. Moreover, neither in his RTI application nor in the appeal has the Appellant brought out any overriding public interest that will be served with the disclosure of the information.
Hence, no cause of action subsists in this case under the RTI Act for further adjudication.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, M/o Commerce & Industry, Copyright Office, Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, Plot No. 32, Sector 12, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 Page 14 of 14 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)