Central Information Commission
Mr.Ajmer Singh vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, Delhi on 28 December, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003159/10672
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003159
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Ajmer Singh
238-B, Paschim Vihar Extension,
New Delhi-110063
Respondent : Ms. Amarjit Kaur
Public Information Officer & Vice Principal Khalsa Girls Senior Secondary School, Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi 110055 RTI application filed on : 23/09/2010 PIO replied : 18/10/2010 First appeal filed on : Not enclosed First Appellate Authority order : Not enclosed Second Appeal received on : 10/11/2010 Information Sought:
The appellant sought the copy of the approvals obtained from the Education Department and copies of their degrees and certificates for four teachers. He also sought the inquiry report on the watchman Sumesh made by the principal of Nav Hind School.
Reply of the Public Information Commissioner:
The PIO replied that some of these details don't come under the section 2(f) of RTI Act (2005) and the others were protected under the section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act 2005. Further there were no inquiry reports on Sumesh.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Not enclosed.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA): Not enclosed.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
To ask for the right information from the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Ajmer Singh;
Respondent: Ms. Amarjit Kaur, Public Information Officer & Vice Principal;
The PIO has refused to give the copies of the approval from the Education Department for the appointment of four teachers and copies of their degrees/certificates claiming exemption under Section 8(1)
(j) of the RTI Act.
Under Section 8 (1) (j) information which has been exempted is defined as:
"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 Page 1 of 3 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, organisations or corporates. Hence Section 8 (1) (j) cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organisations or corporates.
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.
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 will not be covered by the exemption under Section 8 (1) (j).
The information about approvals obtained from Department of Education and photocopies of certificates/degrees submitted by employees based on which they have been given employment cannot be considered as unwarranted invasion on the privacy of an individual and the information has definitely been obtained by the school in the course of public activity.
As regards the inquiry report of the chowkidar Mr. Sumesh the PIO states that the information is not available with the school but is available with the Education Department. The Commission directs the PIO to transfer the RTI application alongwith a copy of this order to the concerned PIO of the Page 2 of 3 Department of Education who is directed to send the copy of the report to the Appellant within 15 days of receipt of the RTI Application.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the complete information to the Appellant before 15 January 2011. She is also directed to transfer the RTI application alongwith a copy of this order to the concerned PIO before 31 December 2010, who will give a copy of the inquiry report to the Appellant within 15 days of receipt of the RTI Application.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 28 December 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PBR) Page 3 of 3