Central Information Commission
Mr.K S Yadav vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 1 February, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003429/11214
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003429
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal;
Appellant : Mr. K. S. Yadav,
R/o D1/714, Rajpur Road,
Civil Lines,
Delhi -110054.
Respondent : Mr. Madan Mohan
Public Information Officer & Assistant Commissioner, Labour Welfare Department (HQ.), Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 21st Floor, Civic Center, Minto Road, New Delhi - 110002 Third Party : Mr. R. S. Meena, 49/1, MCD Flat, Bungalow Road, Kamla Nagar, New Delhi RTI application filed on : 23/09/2010 PIO replied : 07/10/2010 & 21/10/2010 First appeal filed on : 25/10/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 24/11/2010 Second Appeal received on : 02/12/2010 Information Sought:
The Appellant had sought information regarding the inspection of files/papers pertaining to selection of Labour Welfare Superintendent in the year 1986, in which appellant was also a candidate.
Reply of PIO:
Applicant can inspect files and papers pertaining to selection of Labour Welfare Superintendent in the year 1986 on 18-09-2010 at 12.00 noon.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information given by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
FAA ordered, "Information relates to 3rd Party & sub-judice and comes under the purview of Sec.8(d) of RTI Act and other information required by him is not traceable since the documents required by him is 24 yrs old, so the information cannot be provided to the appellant ."
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The Appellant had inspected the relevant records and deposited the additional fee for getting the information. His money was refunded and he was told that since the information he is seeking is third party and hence can not be provided.Page 1 of 3
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 18 January 2011:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. K. S. Yadav;
Respondent : Mr. Madan Mohan, Public Information Officer & Assistant Commissioner;
"The PIO states that Mr. R. S. Meena, Dy. Commissioner whose information the Appellant wants photocopies of has raised an objection to disclosing the information. The Commissioner therefore gives an opportunity to the third party Mr. R. S. Meena to present himself before the Commission on 01 February 2011 at 11.30AM to put his views as to why the information should not be provided to the Appellant. Mr. R. S. Meena will have to show the Commission that the information is exempt under Section-8(1) of the RTI Act if he does not want the information to be disclosed.
Mr. R. S. Meena, Mr. K. S. Yadav and the PIO Mr. Madan Mohan are directed to appear before the Commission on 01 February 2011 at 11.30AM." The matter was adjourned to 01 February 2011.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 01 February 2011:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. K. S. Yadav;
Respondent : Mr. Madan Mohan, Public Information Officer & Assistant Commissioner; Third Party: Mr. R. S. Meena, 49/1, MCD Flat, Bunglow Road, Kamla Nagar, New Delhi;
The third party Mr. R. S. Meena has been a written representation to the Commission in which he has stated that the Appellant is agitating in a court against his selection and that he believes the information should be denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He also contends that an appointment matter and administrative matter do not fall under the purview of the RTI Act. He also contends that the Establishment matters are not covered under the RTI Act and states that unless there is a public interest information should not be disclosed. He also argued that Mr. K. S. Yadav has not disclosed the fact that he is a MCD officer and hence the information should not be provided to him. He has also claimed exemption under 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
Most of the grounds provided by the Third Party are complete irrelevant and he is creating exemptions which have not been provided by Parliament under the RTI Act. Information can be denied under the RTI Act if it is exempted under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission will now examine his claim for exemptions under Sections 8(1)(d) & (j) of the RTI Act.
Section 8(1)(d) exempts, "information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;". The Appellant has sought an inspection and the copies of records of the selection process for the post of Labour Welfare Superintendent in the year 1986. It is impossible to imagine how these records could harm the competitive position of any third party. First there is no commercial confidence in the matter and no commercial confidence can be claimed to be violated 24 years after the occurrence of any action.
The Third Party has also claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act which exempts, "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, Page 2 of 3 organisations or corporates. Hence Section 8 (1) (j) cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organisations or corporates.
2. 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.
3. 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. 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.
Thus information provided by individuals in fulfillment of statutory requirements, or for applying for a job or the selection process of selecting a person for a public job will not be covered by the exemption under Section 8 (1) (j). Hence the Commission rules that the information sought by the Appellant is not covered by the Exemptions under Sections 8(1)(d) & (j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the compete information to the Appellant before 20 February 2011.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 01 February 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PBR) Page 3 of 3