Central Information Commission
Mrsunita Chopra vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, Delhi on 25 February, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION OMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/A/2015/001934
Sunita Chopra Vs. Dte of Education (North), GNCTD
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI/PIO: 132/2122015(8) FA/FAO: 33/142015(29) 2nd Appeal: 16102015
Disposed of with directions Hearing: 11022016 Decision:25022016
Parties Present:
The appellant is present along with Anil Verma. The Public Authority is represented by Mr.
Shyam Sunder, PIO and Mr. Devendra Kumar, HOS (VicePrincipal) and Mr. Naresh Kumar.
FACTS:
2. The appellant filed the RTI application with respect to inadequate maintenance amount paid to her by her husband who has deserted her and her two sons. She sought latest salary slip of Shri Naresh Kumar Chopra, his residential address, copy of service book, latest GPF statement, details of assets owned by him. She also sought name of nominee appointed by her husband in GPF & Family Pension, group insurance schemes, CGHS, death & retirement gratuity etc. The CPIO denied information as it was personal information of Mr. Naresh Chopra. The appellant filed appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) and the FAA ordered PIO/DDE (North) to provide information. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed a second appeal before this Commission under section 19(3) of the RTI Act.
CIC/SA/A/2015/001934 Page 1 DECISION: 3. Both the parties made their submissions. The Public Authority had furnished the
information about the salary slip and other details of Mr. NK Chopra, who was present before the Commission. Mr. NK Chopra, who is the third party in this case, submitted that the appellant, who is his wife, had left his house some 26 years ago. As per the court's order, he has been paying Rs.2,000/ pm regularly. He declined to permit his personal information to be given to the appellant.
4. The desertion alleged by the appellant is of a period 26 year which is a long period. The claim of the appellant that the maintenance amount as fixed by the court was Rs. 2000 which according to the appellant is not adequate was never appealed from. The Commission hold that the legality or otherwise of inadequacy of the maintenance payable to her is not fit to be examined at this stage as it is always a matter to be determined by the appropriate court of law.
5. The appellant has sought latest salary slip of Shri Naresh Kumar Chopra, his residential address, copy of service book, latest GPF statement, details of assets owned by him. She also sought name of nominee appointed by him in GPF & Family Pension, group insurance schemes, CGHS, death & retirement gratuity etc. The husband who is third party in this case, raised objections that it is his personal information and accordingly should not be disclosed as it will unwarrantably infringe his privacy.
6. The question for consideration before this Commission is whether the aforesaid information as sought by the appellant can be treated as 'personal information' as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. It may be pertinent to mention that the Appellant who is a deserted wife is claiming inadequacy of maintenance from her husband entailed to have access to aforesaid information about his financial information / records from the public authority where the husband is employed.
CIC/SA/A/2015/001934 Page 2
7. This issue has come up for discussion earlier in Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma (FAO 369/1996 decided on 14th January 2015), where Delhi High Court directed both spouses to file affidavits about their income, assets and investments and listed out the documents to be attached including certain documents which were earlier held to be personal or third party information.
Depending on the financial conditions and non availability of support from parents, when husband does not maintain his wife, it challenges her right to live, and thus information related to maintenance becomes life related information. This information about assets, income and investments of spouses is no more private or personal information as against spouses, even if that information could be personal or private information as against any person other than spouse. The proviso to Section 8(1)(j) read with Section 8(2) of the Right to Information Act entitled the appellant to get information which she sought because of overwhelming public interest in securing the lives of deserted wives.
Though certain documents like annual returns of assets, investments, IT returns etc were earlier declared as private/ personal or third party information, as far as spouses are concerned they are not private or personal or third party information between them, in the context of marital disputes especially for maintenance purposes.
8. The appellant however, in this case, is not entitled to personal property related information exempted under Section 8(1)(j) because there is no longer any marital relationship subsisting nor is there any dispute over maintenance. The appellant has not raised any issue over maintenance ever since she deserted her husband. The appellant did not submit that there was any dispute over adequacy of maintenance fixed over two decades before. It may accordingly be construed that there is no subsisting legal claim for the same. The field of privacy as recognized by RTI act gets reduced in cases of maintenance between spouses. From the submissions made by both parties it was observed that the spouses are living separately by mutual consent and so the ratio of Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma does not hold good in this matter. Commission believes that there must be repose CIC/SA/A/2015/001934 Page 3 and unclaimed right of maintenance for a period of more than 20 years should not be resurrected to harass the husband, Shri Naresh Kumar Chopra by allowing disclosure of his private information.
The PIO's was correct in rejecting the request for such personal information to the appellant , on the ground of Section 8(1)(j), because the protection of privacy is not overridden by the larger public interest in maintaining wives in the present case, as provided in the proviso to exception 8(1)(j).
9. The appellant in the instant case has not made a bona fide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission, therefore, is of the view that the appellant has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, Commission is not inclined to entertain her appeal for disclosure of personal information of Shri Naresh Kumar Chopra.
10. This case is accordingly processed as a standard case of exemption under Section 8(1)(j), not hit by the ruling in Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma.
Thus, in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012] the Supreme Court held :
" The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, CIC/SA/A/2015/001934 Page 4 appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right."
9. The Commission thus holds that a. The husband in this case, has no duty to provide the personal information listed above to the appellant, and the appellant wife has no right to his private information as there is no longer any marital relationship nor any dispute over maintenance which forms basis for disclosure of personal information under Section 8(1)(j) and larger public interest cannot be invoked.
b. Thus, deductions from salalry are private information and it cannot be disclosed. Details of nominee, residential address is also private information and not to be disclosed.
c. The appellant is however entitled to have access to the salary related information. The Commission finds that the information that can be given under Section 4(1)(b) was provided to the appellant. The CPIO is directed to provide to the appellant, salary related details of Shri Naresh Kumar Chopra without deductions and annual status of assets and liabilities if held by the public authority. The other information relating to the service book, GPF and other details which fall under the exceptions laid down under Section 8(1)(j) need not be disclosed. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(U. C. Joshi)
CIC/SA/A/2015/001934 Page 5
Deputy Secretary
Addresses of the parties:
1. The PIO under RTI, Govt of Delhi
Directorate of Education, North District
Lucknow Road, Timarpur,
New Delhi110054 (RTI Branch)
2.Ms.Sunita Chopra
A1/116, DDA Flats, Keshav Puram
NEW DELHI110035
CIC/SA/A/2015/001934 Page 6