Central Information Commission
K Jayaprakash vs Chief Commissioner Of Customs, ... on 16 May, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CCUBL/A/2022/142669
K Jayaprakash ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
JOINT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
CITY CUSTOMS COMMISSIONERATE,
RTI CELL, P.B.NO.5400, C R
BUILDING, QUEEN'S ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001, KARNATAKA. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09/05/2023
Date of Decision : 09/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29/12/2021
CPIO replied on : 24/01/2022 & 28/06/2022
First appeal filed on : 08/02/2022 & 26/07/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 16/08/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01/09/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.12.2021 seeking the following information:1
"The following information in respect of Officers who worked under Customs formations and currently working/retired in Central Excise/Service Tax/Central Tax and other formations to whom charge memorandums were issued by the Commissioner of Central Tax/Central Excise/Service Tax for missing gold from the godowns of Customs department for the period from April, 2010 to November, 2021:- (a) Copies of Charge Memorandum(s), reply given by the charged officer, the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, Order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Order passed by the Appellate Authority, Orders of Central Administrative Tribunals and judgements of High Court in respect of charge memorandum issued to officers in respect of theft/pilferate/misappropriation of gold stored in the godown of Customs department."
The further facts of the case are gathered from the FAA's order as the Appellant did not provide the complete trajectory of the RTI Application in the Second Appeal. The relevant facts are as under:
"The CPIO vide Letter dated 24.01.2022 withheld the information by citing Section 8 (1) (h) and 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed First appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 15.02.2022. The FAA had remanded to the CPIO to apply Section 11 of RTI Act, 2005 and the appellant was directed to show the wider public interest involved in the information sought. Taking into accounts of the letter submitted by the applicant, the CPIO conducted Personal Hearing dated 19.04.2022. Further, as per the procedures laid in section 11 of RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO called the third party to inform him about his intention to disclose the information, to which the third party raised objection citing that "Disclosure of these types of sensitive/confidential information about him is against his interest and requested not to disclose the same". The CPIO then passed the order No. Nil dated 29.06.2022 rejecting the information based on above submissions and the observation made by CIC in the case of C Nagarajan vs Department of Post on 19 January 2019 wherein, references to the following decisions were made to the Case of Shankar Sharma & Ors. vs. DGIT (CIC/AT/A/2007/0007, 10 & 11] and the case of V.K. Gulati Vs. DG Vig. Customs & Central Excise; IOC/AT/A/2007/01508; Date of Decision: 17.06.2007.
Further, it was informed that in case the appellant is aggrieved by the reply, he may file an appeal with the appellate authority viz. the APIO/Joint Commissioner of Customs, City Customs Commissionerate, 4th Floor, CR Building, Queens Road, Bengaluru-56001 subject to the conditions specified under the Right to Information Act, 2005.2
Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed First appeal before the appellate authority under section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 on 26.07.2022 wherein with reference to rejection under Section 8(1) (h), he stated that The appellant has stated that in the above mentioned cases the documents sought were part of the investigation and stated that the documents sought by him are not relied upon documents by the Disciplinary Authority and nowhere in the charge memorandum or in any other documents it is mentioned that the documents sought by him are part of investigation. He stated that it should be confirmed whether the documents sought are available or not before rejection of the same under Section 8 of the Act, and when information sought are withhold under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, the burden is on the public authority to show that in what manner disclosure of such information could impede the investigation. In support of this stand, he relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court Order in case of B.S. Mathur VS. Public Information Officer of Delhi High Court, (2011) 125 DR.' 508. He requested to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought."
Thereafter, the FAA's order dated 16.08.2022, held as under:
"I have gone through the case laws relied upon by the appellant vide his appeal dated 26.07.2022 and the CPIO order dated 29.06.2020.I find that the information asked for in the original RTI dated 29.12.2021 consists of copies of charge memorandums, replies given by charged officer, report of the inquiry office, order passed by Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority, CAT and High Court. I find that the information sought falls under third party as per RTI Act, 2005. Third Parties were asked for their opinion who refused to disclose the information as it was against their interest. Accordingly, I uphold the rejection of the CPIO vide her letter dated 29.06.2022.
Based on the above, I order the following:
I reject the appeal filed by the appellant dated 26.07.2022."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.3
Respondent: Inderjeet Panda, DC & CPIO present through video conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO and demanded to know as to who are these third parties, whose reference is being tendered by the CPIO & FAA. Further, upon a remark of the Commission at having sought for information of such magnitude, the Appellant argued that the information sought for by him entails perhaps just one case file and therefore is not to be deemed as voluminous.
The CPIO emphasised on the FAA's order and further reiterated the denial of the information.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the information sought for by the Appellant is unspecific, relates to multiple third parties as he seeks information 'in respect of Officers who worked under Customs formations and currently working/retired in Central Excise/Service Tax/Central Tax and other formations to whom charge memorandums were issued by the Commissioner of Central Tax/Central Excise/Service Tax for missing gold from the godowns of Customs department' and the time period for which the enormity of the details are sought for span across 11 years. The applicability of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act is inconsequential in the matter as the information stands squarely exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
For the sake of clarity, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act provides as under:
"(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, the attention of the Appellant is further 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 4 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..."
Further, on the aspect of larger public interest, the Commission places reliance on a catena of judgments of the superior Courts on the import of "public interest" as under:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.9052 OF 2012] observed as under:
"23. 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 recommendation and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)]. Emphasis Supplied 5 "24. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to 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. Certain matters, particularly in relation to appointment, are required to be dealt with great confidentiality."
".... Similarly, there may be cases where the disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. All these protections have to be given their due implementation as they spring from statutory exemptions. It is not a decision simpliciter between private interest and public interest. It is a matter where a constitutional protection is available to a person with regard to the right to privacy. Thus, the public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance factor between right to privacy and right to information with the purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be served in the larger public interest, particularly when both these rights emerge from the constitutional values under the Constitution of India." Emphasis Supplied Similarly, in another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. P. Gupta v President of India, [AIR 1982 SC 149], with reference to 'public interest' it has been maintained that:
"Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, 'diffused' rights and interests vindicate public interest... [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected." Emphasis Supplied And, in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others [Appeal (Civil) 4937-4940 of 1998], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"the interest of general public (public interest) is of a wide importance covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution [i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy]". Emphasis Supplied Since there is no material on record to ascribe larger public interest in the disclosure of the information related to the averred third parties in any of the above referred contexts, the Commission finds no reason to order for any relief in the matter.6
Further, considering the magnitude of the information sought for, the Commission also relies on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information, (that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Having observed as above, no action is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 7 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8