Central Information Commission
Predeep. P vs Indian Institute Of Management, ... on 16 November, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/NITCL/A/2017/604395-BJ
Mr. Predeep P., Professor,
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Institute of Technology
NIT Campus, Calicut
Kozhikode, Kerala - 673601
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15.11.2018
Date of Decision : 16.11.2018
Date of RTI application 15.05.2017
CPIO's response 14.06.2017
Date of the First Appeal 14.06.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points regarding the details of PhD guided (with names of candidate and date of award) as sole or Principal supervisor in career and number of ongoing as on 27.02.2013, number of individually obtained (as Principal investigator) High Values sponsored or consultancy projects completed and any ongoing projects during the past six years preceding 27.02.2013 with full details of the name of the project and the date of completion of the project and other issues related thereto. The CPIO, vide letter dated 14.06.2017 denied disclosure of information being personal information of the Professors of the Institute under Section 8(1) (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAAs order, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Predeep P., through VC;Page 1 of 6
Respondent: Mr. Bharat, CPIO through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that complete and satisfactory information had not been received by him, till date. It was further alleged that he was wrongly denied promotion by NIT and that he had contested the matter in the High Court where the judgment was pronounced in his favour. It was argued that the Apex Court also upheld his contention. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that in compliance with the direction of the FAA vide order dated 30.01.2018, the CPIO after collating all the relevant information/documents from the concerned sections and respective faculties provided a suitable reply to the Appellant on 21.02.2018. With regard to the information sought regarding 28 faculties, it was submitted that consent under Section 11(1) of the Act was sought from the respective faculties out of which only 07 agreed to divulge the information related to them and other faculties denied disclosure of information as the matter was sub-judice. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.11.2018 wherein while reiterating the reply of the CPIO/FAA, it was submitted that the CPIO had denied disclosure of information u/s 8(1) (d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, in the reply due to typing error Section 8(f) was mentioned. It was further submitted that in compliance to the order of the FAA, he had collated all the documents and furnished to the Appellant vide letter dated 21.02.2018. It was also submitted that the Appellant had sought information on 28 faculties and only 07 of them agreed to divulge the information and rest other faculties did not divulge information pertaining to them as the matter was sub-judice. Furthermore, the institute was actively pursuing the SLP (C) No. 9370/2017 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21.12.2016 in WA No. 2455/2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. This petition pertains to grant of Higher Academic Grade (HAG) Scale to the Professors of NIT, Calicut. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard was given on 13.04.2018 stating that the Institute would consider all eligible persons and pass an appropriate order. It was also submitted that they had complied with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the applications of all professors, who applied to be considered for HAG scale were considered by the Institute through properly constituted Selection Committee as per the extant provisions of the Statutes. Hence, it was requested to the Commission to dispose off the present Appeal as the requisite information had already been supplied to the Appellant considering all the relevant Sections of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"Page 2 of 6
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Commission further referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 dated 31.08.2017 had held as under:
"5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc Page 3 of 6
11) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of the Act.
12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in 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, 5 it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature;
secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1."
As regards the information sought regarding personal details of 28 professors (names as mentioned in the RTI application), the Commission observed that the same fell in the category of Third Party information which was exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Union Public Service Commission v. Dr. Mahesh Mangalat (Date of Decision: 17th March, 2015) (W.P.(C) No. 7431/2011) had held:-
"18. Prior to the enactment of the RTI Act, access to any information pertaining to public authorities was correlated to the locus standi of the requestor. In other words, it was necessary for the information-seeker to show why he/she wanted the information before a decision could be made to give or not to give the information sought by him. With the enactment of the RTI Act this requirement has been changed drastically. The present Act abolishes the concept of locus standi as under section 6(2) of the RTI Act no reasons need to be given for seeking information. However, this restriction on disclosure of reasons cannot be misconstrued to mean that any information pertaining to a public authority or its employees is public information.
19. It is a settled law that for seeking personal information regarding any employee of the public authority the applicant must disclose a "sustainable public interest‟. Even Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act was enacted to ensure that all information furnished to public authorities including personal information is not given free access to. As per this Section unless the CPIO or the State PIO or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies, the disclosure of any such information that invades the privacy of an individual is not permissible. Moreover, the Commission relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 wherein in the context of exemption under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Court had held that exemption provided under Section 8 of the Act is the rule and only in exceptional circumstances Page 4 of 6 of larger public interest the information would be disclosed. The relevant observations are mentioned as under:
"22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh [AIR 1952 SC 252] ). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)].
23. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to the circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal (decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the following texts for defining the meaning of "public interest', which is stated as under:
"Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus:
"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :
Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."
In Mardia Chemical Limited v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while considering the validity of SARFAESI Act and recovery of non-performing assets by banks and financial institutions in India, recognised the significance of Public Interest and had held as under :
".............Public interest has always been considered to be above the private interest. Interest of an individual may, to some extent, be affected but it cannot have the potential of taking over the public interest having an impact in the socio-economic drive of the country..........."
. Every action of a Public Authority is expected to be carried out in Public Interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi, etc vs. State of UP and Ors., 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 625 dated 20.09.1990 wherein it had been held as under:
"Private parties are concerned only with their personal interest whereas the State while exercising its powers and discharging its functions, acts indubitably, as is expected of it, Page 5 of 6 for public good and in public interest. The impact of every State action is also on public interest."
Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of LIC of India vs. Consumer Education and Research Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811 dated 10.05.1995 had held as under:
"Every action of the public authority or the person acting in public interest or its acts give rise to public element, should be guided by public interest. It is the exercise of the public power or action hedged with public element becomes open to challenge."
The Appellant could not contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of aforementioned decisions, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 16.11.2018
Copy to:
1. The Director, National Institute of Technology, NIT Campus, Calicut, Kozhikode, Kerala - 673601 Page 6 of 6