Central Information Commission
Vijay Bishnoi vs Competition Commission Of India on 6 August, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CPCOI/A/2024/628381
Shri Vijay Bishnoi ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Competition Commission of India ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01.08.2025
Date of Decision : 01.08.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.02.2024
PIO replied on : 12.03.2024
First Appeal filed on : 17.03.2024
First Appellate Order on : 10.04.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 08.07.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
"1. Provide complete details from Calendar Year 2010 to Calendar year 2023 as to the total amount of medical expenses of Shri Amit Tayal, Joint Director (Law) reimbursed by the Competition Commission of India (for each calendar year separately). [It is clarified that the same is not a personal information and as such not exempted under Section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the Information seeker is not asking for copies of the medical bill/ prescription rather asking for total amount of expanses borne by CCI out of the public fund on an employee. Moreover, the same is also required to be disclosed if the issue pertains to corruption as per Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 as the complaint with respect to the same has already been made to the concerned authorities by the Information seeker] [Information pertains to the F&A Division]"
The CPIO, Director (Law) vide letter dated 12.03.2024 replied as under:-
"The information sought for you is personal in nature, therefore, the same is exempted from disclosure in terms of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, your attention is drawn towards the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the W.P.(C) 1842/2012 & CM No. 4033/2012 in the matter of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhas Chandra Agarwal & Ors; whereby it has been categorically held:Page 1 of 4
"8. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the information sought by the respondent is with regard to expenses incurred on medical facilities of Judges (retired as well as serving). Concededly, information relating to the medical records would be personal information which is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The medical bills would indicate the treatment and/or medicines required by individuals and this would clearly be an invasion of the privacy.........
...................
12. Further, the extent of medical reimbursement to an individual is also, in one sense, personal information as it would disclose the extent of medical services availed by an individual. Thus, unless a larger public interest is shown to be served, there is no necessity for providing such information."
Further, no larger interest has been shown which warrants the disclosure of such information."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.03.2024. The FAA, Secretary, Competition Commission of India vide order dated 10.04.2024 replied as under:-
"4. I have perused the RTI Application dated 12.02.2024, reply of the CPIO vide letter dated 12.03.2024 and instant appeal received on 17.03.2024 on the ground "Refused access to Information Requested".
5. On perusal, it has been observed that the decision of the CPIO with respect to the RTI application seems justifiable. Relying on the judgment cited in the reply to the application, act of the CPIO appears to be in conformity with Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and does not suffer from any infirmity.
6. Resultantly, nothing survives in the appeal and the same stands disposed of as no interference with the reply of CPIO (dated 12.03.2024) is warranted. Further, the appellant is at liberty to avail remedies before the concerned appropriate authority as per applicable law, if so desired." Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Appellant has submitted a written submission dated 11.07.2025 reiterating his query, supporting the same by his claims and contentions. He has attempted to distinguish his case from the decision in the case of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhas Chandra Agarwal & Ors; stating that he has sought total amount of expenditure and not medical bills on record, hence the aforementioned decision cited by the Respondent and the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act are not applicable in his case.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present Respondent: Dr. K D Singh- CPIO, CCI was present during hearing The Appellant contended that he sought the aforementioned information which pertains to expenditure of public funds and hence is of significant public interest.Page 2 of 4
The Respondent on the other hand reiterated that the information sought by the Appellant refers to personal information of a third party, disclosure whereof has no bearing with public interest but would surely result in unwarranted invasion into the privacy of the concerned third person. Hence, the Appellant was denied access to the information citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It was also added by the Respondent that medical entitlement for every public official on the basis of their rank and designation is already in public domain, but individual medical expense for a specific person cannot be provided to protect privacy of the individual from being invaded.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and hearing averments of the parties, the Commission notes that firstly, the decision dated 19.12.2014 in the case of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhas Chandra Agarwal & Ors [WP(C) 1842/2012] dealt with the same issue i.e.: "8. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the information sought by the respondent is with regard to expenses incurred on medical facilities of Judges (retired as well as serving)." The Hon'ble Single Judge had made specific observation in this regard in the following paragraph as under: "extent of medical reimbursement to an individual is also, in one sense, personal information as it would disclose the extent of medical services availed by an individual. Thus, unless a larger public interest is shown to be served, there is no necessity for providing such information."
It is worthwhile note that the above decision of the Single Judge of declining disclosure of expenses related to medical facilities of Judges was challenged in an Appeal as LPA No. 34/2015 which was also dismissed vide order dated 17.04.2015, with the following observation:
"The information sought by the appellant includes the details of the medical facilities availed by the individual judges. The same being personal information, we are of the view that providing such information would undoubtedly amount to invasion of the privacy. ............. we are unable to understand how the public interest requires disclosure of the details of the medical facilities availed by the individual judges..."
The Commission finds it worthwhile to place reliance on a judgement dated 13.11.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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 while discussing the purport of "personal information" as envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act in the context of earlier decisions laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of: i) Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; ii) Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and iii) R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC794, it was held as under:
"...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, Page 3 of 4 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] The ratio propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Delhi high Court in the aforementioned cases is squarely applicable to the facts of the case at hand and the Commission finds no reason to interfere with a well settled legal position. The response sent by the Respondent is upheld as legally appropriate. Hence no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)