Central Information Commission
Raghul K vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 17 March, 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/CBODT/A/2022/124672
Raghul K अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX, O/O THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,
TAMIL NADU & PUDUCHERRY, RTI
CELL, 121, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD,
NUNGAMBAKKAM,
CHENNAI-600034, TAMILNADU. ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16/03/2023
Date of Decision : 16/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27/12/2021
CPIO replied on : 29/12/2021 & 25/01/2022
First appeal filed on : 17/02/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 01/03/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16/04/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.12.2021 seeking the following information:
"....I am a son of Mr. Kannan s/o Chinnamogu Retired Income Tax Officer.I humbly request you to provide the following information to get the tribal caste certificate.1
1. Mr. Ulagargin S/o Chinnamogu, administrative officer(Retd.), first page copy of their service register as a true copy.
2. The order issued by Mr. Gopal Krishnan IAS, chairman district vigilance committee, District administrator, Vellore, stating that Mr. Ulagargin S/o Chinnamogu belongs to the tribal community has been sent to your office on 12.01.2007, provide a copy of that order signed as a true copy.
3. The letter received from State Vigilance Committee & Govt. Secretary, Adi- dravida and tribal welfare, secretarirat, Chennai as Mr. Ulagargin S/o Chinnamogu belong to the tribal community."
The CPIO, O/o CCIT, Chennai transferred the RTI Application for Points no 2 &3 to the CPIO, DCIT (Hqrs) (Admn), Pr. CCIT, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry & Chennai on 29.12.2021 for taking further necessary action.
The CPIO, O/s. PCIT, Tamil Nadu & Puducherry furnished a reply to the appellant on 25.01.2022 stating as under:
"On verification of the office records and the information received from the Administrative Officer, 0/o. the Pr. CCIT-TN&P, Chennai, the information sought for by the int vide RTI application is as follows:
As per section 8(1)(j) of RTI act, 2005 there shall be no obligation to provide the information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to larger public interest Hence, the information sought for by the applicant is not provided."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.02.2022. FAA's order, dated 01.03.2022 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: R. Ramakaran, DCIT (Hqr.) (Admn.) & CPIO present through video- conference.2
The Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the denial of information by the CPIO.
In response to it, the CPIO relied on his written submissions dated 07.03.2023 and tendered his arguments on the following lines :
"1. Since the information sought by the applicant pertains to personal information of third party, in accordance with section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, this office vide letter in S.F.No.35/PCCIT, CHE/RTI ACT/2021-22 dated 03.01.2022 enclosing copy of the RTI application, has sought the consent of Shri C. Ulagaraju, AO Gr-II (recd.) whether the information called for by the applicant should be disclosed.
2. In response, Shri C. Ulagaraju vide letter dated 10.01.2022 received by this office on 25.01.2022 has stated that:-
"I wish to inform that I am objecting to furnishing my service records and personal information to third party. Under RTI Act, 2005, section 8(I)(J) states that "Not withstanding anything contained in this act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information which relates to personal information" the disclosure of which has no relationship to public activity or interest. On seeing the letter sent by the person who asked the information is not public interest. But the motive was individual interest. Since he want to avail the community certificate....
Once again, I wish to inform to your good office that, recent Supreme Court division bench consist of Justice RK Agarwal and Justice AM Sapra has ruled that service details of an employee can't be shared under RTI, as personal information is exempt from disclosure under RTI.
Once again, I wish to inform to your good office that, recent Supreme Court division bench consist of Justice RK Agarwal and Justice AM Sapra has ruled that service details of an employee can't be shared under RTI, as personal information is exempt from disclosure under RTL In another order Delhi high court in 2021, division bench head by Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Jyoti singh said that the right to get information is subject to certain provision of the RTI act, Section 8 has categorically mentioned that personal information cannot be supplied... which has no relation to any public activity. Hence, I once again objecting to furnish my service record and personal details as asked by the officer and to the person who asked the information. Since the person is third party and also there is no public interest as mentioned in his letter."
3. In view of the above, and as per the provisions of section 8(1)(J) of the RTI Act, 2005 the information sought by the applicant was not provided as the applicant has sought the information for personal use and there is no larger public interest. Accordingly, the RTI application was disposed denying the information sought vide 3 order under section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 in C. No.Misc./Estt/RTI(243)/2021 dated 25.01.2022..."
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the core contention raised by the Appellant in the instant Appeal was denial of third party's caste certificate and service records under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission arrives at the conclusion that the CPIO has appropriately denied the personal information of third party after following due process of law of Section 11 of RTI Act, as it invades the privacy of said third party which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx
(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, attention of the Appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of 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 the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of 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, 4 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..."
Having observed as above, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
However, in pursuance of clause 4 of the hearing notice, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of his written submission dated 07.03.2023 free of cost with the Appellant within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5