Central Information Commission
Mr.Arun Kumar vs Ministry Of Information And ... on 12 September, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001339/SG/14544
Appeal No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001339/SG
Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar,
331/13, Mohit Nagar,
Dehradun-248006
Respondent (1) : Mr. A. K. Maheshwari
PIO & Dy. Director General (Engineering)
AIR & Doordarshan,
Jamnagar House Hutments,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi 110003
(2) CPIO
Ministry of Information & Broadcastign,
Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi
(3) CPIO,
Directorate General Doordarshan,
Copernicus Marg, New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 19/02/2011
PIO replied : 11/03/2011
First Appeal filed on : 15/03/2011
First Appellate Authority order : No Hearing
Second Appeal filed on : 18/04/2010
Information sought:
1. The Appellant sought the Names and Designation of the Engineering Officers working in CPIO's office who contested the elections for the various council posts of the Broadcast Engineering Society.
2. The details of letters with file nos and dates along with copies which were issued for the above officers by the Directorate/ Min of Information & Broadcast granting permissions for contesting the BES Elections which were held last year and which is required as per CCS Rules.
3. The details of the provisions that exist in the CCS Conduct Rules for taking Disciplinary Action against working Govt. Officials, who file their Nominations & Contest Elections for Society like BES, without getting written permission from the concerned authority.
4. The details of the immovable property returns as on 01/01/2011 of the Engineering Officers who contested the BES Elections last year.
Reply of PIO:
1. Sh. B.K. Aggarwal, Chief Engineer, Sh JP Singh, Chief Engineer, Sh. Sunil, Director (Engg.), Sh NI Chauhan, Dy Director (Engg) and Sh SK Goel, ADE.
2. Information was forwarded to Ministry of I&B and Directorate of Doordarshan.
3. Desired information was alleged to be in Public Domain hence doesn't comes under definition of 'Information'.
4. The query related to Third party Information can only be provided only after permission by Third Party.
Grounds for First Appeal:
1. The query no 2 was related to CPIO only and information was not provided but transferred.
2. The query no 4 doesn't relates to third party information as in similar matter FAA allowed the information to be provided.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
No Hearing done as yet as alleged by the Appellant.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
1. The information provided by CPIO (transferred) on Query no 2 .
2. The query no 3 was denied and not provided asserting as in public domain .
3. The query no 4 was not provided and denied as third party information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Arun Kumar on video conference from NIC-Dehradum Studio; Respondent: Mr. A. K. Maheshwari, PIO & Dy. Director General (Engineering);
As regards query-2 the PIO had transferred the RTI Application on 11/03/2011 to CPIO Ministry of Information & Broadcastign, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi and CPIO, Directorate General Doordarshan, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi asking to provide the information on query-2. As regards query-3 the Appellant is effectively seeking an interpretation of the rules from the PIO this is not information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. With respect to query-4 the PIO has stated that it is third party information. The Commission clarifies that Section-11 of the RTI Act is not exemption but only a procedure which has to be applied where as third party has given information in confidence. In such instances the third parties given an opportunity to show that the information being is sought is exempt under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. As regards assists of the public servants the Commission has already ruled in decision no. CIC/SG/A/2009/001436/4247 on 23 July 2009:
"The Commission can allow denial of information only based on the exemptions listed under Section 8 (1) of the act. The PIO has claimed that the information should not be disclosed since it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j).
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 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 we could state that 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 some relationship to 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. The information sought in this case by the appellant has certainly been obtained in the pursuit of 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 on the privacy of a Citizen. In those circumstances special provisos of the law apply, always with certain safeguards. Therefore it can be argued that 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.
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. Any other exceptions would have to be specifically justified. Besides the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that even people who aspire to be public servants by getting elected have to declare their property details. If people who aspire to be public servants must declare their property details it is only logical that the details of assets of those who are public servants must be considered to be disclosable. Hence the exemption under Section 8(1) (j) cannot be applied in the instant case.
In view of this the PIO's and the third party's claim for exemption of this information are not allowed. PIOs are advised to ensure that such information is provided to the Appellant within 30 days of receiving the RTI Application."
Thus the assets of public servants cannot be held to be exempt under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and hence it has to be provided.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information on query-4 as directed above to the Appellant before 30 September 2011.
The Commission also directs CPIO Ministry of Information & Broadcastign, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi and CPIO, Directorate General Doordarshan, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi to provide the information on query-2 to the Appellant before 05 October 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by CPIO Ministry of Information & Broadcastign, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi and CPIO, Directorate General Doordarshan, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIOs are guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the deemed PIOs actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to them, and they are directed give their reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on them.
CPIO Ministry of Information & Broadcastign, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi and CPIO, Directorate General Doordarshan, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi will their written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on them as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 10 October, 2011.
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 12 September 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)(RJ)