Central Information Commission
Yogesh Gupta vs Ministry Of Human Resource Development on 3 July, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मु नरका, नई द ल -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/ADIMV/A/2017/179395/MOHRD/00966
File no.: CIC/ADIMV/A/2017/179395/MOHRD
In the matter of:
Yogesh Gupta
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
Aditi Mahavidhyalaya,
University of Delhi,
Auchandi Road, Bawana, Delhi-110039
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 05/04/2017 CPIO replied on : 09/05/2017 First appeal filed on : 17/06/2017 First Appellate Authority order : 18/08/2017 Second Appeal dated : 24/11/2017 Date of Hearing : 02/07/2019 Date of Decision : 02/07/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Present
Respondent: Ms Sushma, Assistant professor & CPIO alongwith Dr Mamta Sharma & Subhash Agarwal, RTI consultant, representative of the CPIO and Mrs Parul Goel, concerned third party.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information about Dr. Parul Goel, Assistant Professor (Ad hoc basis), Commerce Department of Aditi Mahavidhyalaya for the period from 1st April 2009 to till date:
1. Whether any leave was taken by Dr. Parul Goel, Assistant Professor (Ad hoc basis), Commerce Department from 1st April 2009 to till date without giving any prior application to the college. Provide answer in YES or NO format.
2. If the answer to Point no. 1 is yes,
(a) Provide the duly certified copy of the leave applications.
(b) Provide respective dates for which leave was taken without giving any prior application to the college during the aforesaid period.
3. Whether any advisory issued/action taken on Dr. Parul Goel, Assistant Professor (Ad hoc basis), Commerce Department for taking leave without giving any prior application from 1st April 2009 to till date to the college or any notice issued to her by college. Provide answer in YES or NO format.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO particularly on point no 2 of the RTI application in which both the CPIO and the FAA had given contradictory replies. He further submitted that in the latest submission of the PIO dated 20.06.2019, the PIO has taken a new stand under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. All the replies show that the public authority was not clear in its stand before coming to the Commission. He stated that the exemption claimed by the PIO in his recent reply is wholly misplaced. To substantiate his submissions, he relied on a CIC order passed in the matter of Sandeep Kumar v. PIO, EPFO, Kanpur , File No CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/195272 dated 26.04.2017 in which the following observation was made:
Commission observed that though certain documents like annual returns of assets, investments, IT returns etc. were earlier declared as private/ personal or third party information, as far as spouses are concerned they are not private/personal or third party information between them, in the context of marital disputes especially for maintenance purposes. The field of privacy as recognized by RTI act gets reduced in cases of claim of maintenance between spouses. The appellant had alleged that is she was subjected to domestic violence and was deserted by her husband and that the information is sought for purpose of claiming maintenance. The Commission believes that the ratio File no.: CIC/ADIMV/A/2017/179395/MOHRD of Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma holds good in this matter as matrimonial disputes and maintenance rights of appellant should be settled in larger public interest. The CPIO was not correct in rejecting the request for such information to the appellant, on the ground of Section 8(1) (j), because the protection of privacy is overridden by larger public interest.
To further substantiate his claim he cited another CIC order passed in the matter of Veman Udapudi v. PIO, EPFO, New Delhi, File No CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/175772 dated 27.04.2017 in which following observation was made:
The Commission believes that the ratio of Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma holds good in this matter as matrimonial disputes and maintenance rights of appellant should be settled in larger public interest. The CPIO was not correct in rejecting the request for such information to the appellant, on the ground of Section 8(1)(j), because the protection of privacy is overridden by larger public interest in maintaining deserted wives in the present case, as provided in the proviso to exception 8(1)(j).
He also submitted that the denial of the PIO stating that the leave records are personal details exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is also not apt . He relied on the order passed by CIC in Shri Umesh Kumar Kuril vs The Central Information Commissioner, Indian Ordinance Factories, File No CIC/RK/A/2016/900507/SB dated 05.07.2017, wherein following observation was made:
"The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes that as per the respondent, information could not be furnished due to non-availability of the unique employee personal number. The Commission further observes that since the personal number is only available with the organization and the employee concerned, it would not be possible for any appellant to quote the unique personal number while seeking information. However, the appellant had mentioned the date of birth, father's name and the residential address of the two employees about whom he had sought information, which can be used by the respondent to identify the employees. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to provide the information sought by the appellant, after severing any personal information of the two employees which is exempted under the provisions of the RTI Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
The PIO submitted that a revised reply has been provided to the appellant on 20.06.2019 and whatever information could have been shared has been already provided to the appellant vide CPIO's reply dated 09.05.2017. He also brought to the notice of the Commission that the appellant is a habitual RTI applicant having filed about 20-30 RTI applications. He further relied on the following judgments in support of their stand in this case :
1. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shail Sahni versus Sanjeev Kumar and others dated 05.02.2014, W.P No 845/2014 has held as under:
"Keeping in view the width and amplitude of the information sought by the petitioner, it is apparent that the prayers in the writ petition are nothing short of an abuse of process of law and motivated if not an attempt to intimidate the respondent. In fact, even two days ago, this Court had dealt with a writ petition filed by the present petitioner being W.P.(C) 784/2014 wherein equally wide information had been asked for under the RTI Act."
" ...This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose /faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. A copy of this order is directed to be sent by the Registry to Defence and Law Ministry, so that they may examine the aspect of misuse of this Act, which confers very important and valuable rights upon a citizen".
He further submitted that responding to such RTI applications by the petitioner in a routine manner involves a lot of man-hours, resources of the College and unnecessary mental-torture of the targeted one in his RTI applications while drawing attention of the Commission to the verdict dated 09.08.2011 by the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter "Central Board of Secondary Education versus Aditya Banopadhyaya and others" (Civil Appeal number 6454 of 2011). Relevant extracts of para 37 of the said Supreme Court verdict are reproduced as hereunder:
File no.: CIC/ADIMV/A/2017/179395/MOHRD "....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 notion 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 Ml 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."
At the end, it was prayed that the second appeal may be dismissed with strictures passed against the petitioner so as to discourage misuse of such a powerful tool of transparency just to target individuals for reasons best known to the appellant.
Mrs Parul Goel, the concerned third party who also appeared submitted that the appellant has filed several RTI applications just to harass and defame her as there is a matrimonial dispute pending before a competent court and the appellant wants to take revenge on her. She further submitted that she had already denied the request to disclose the information related to her under Sec 11 of the Act and prays that such information may not be provided to the appellant.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records and considering the submissions of the parties, both oral and written, it is noted that the main issue raised by the appellant is that the personal details of Mrs Parul Goel including her leave details were not provided to him. He relied on various orders of the Commission to substantiate the fact that the sought for information is not exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, the Commission does not concur with the view taken by the appellant as the information sought by the appellant in his RTI application is purely in the nature of personal information which is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the reason why the quoted decisions are not applicable in this case is that the appellant was unable to demonstrate any larger public interest ,other than submitting that the desired information is required to prove his innocence in a criminal case filed against him by his wife. Here, it is pertinent to mention that the Commission cannot take sides in a marital dispute. It cannot even be a forum to decide who is right or wrong and is purely the custodian of the transparency legislation.
With respect to the issue raised regarding the personal information of the third party and its non-disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act,2005, the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission &ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
"14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
Also, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Municipal Corporation Delhi vs. Rajbir W.P.(C) 13219/2009 and CM 14393/2009, decided on 24.08.2017 had held as under:
"9..................Respondent has not provided any credible justification for seeking information regarding the personal assets of the MCD employee in question.
10. There can be no doubt that the information sought by respondent is personal information concerning an employee of MCD. Such information could be disclosed only if respondent could establish that disclosure of such information was justified by larger public interest. Even if the PIO was satisfied that disclosure of such information was justified, the PIO was required to follow the procedure given under Section 11 of the Act; that is, File no.: CIC/ADIMV/A/2017/179395/MOHRD the PIO was required to give a notice to the concerned employee stating that he intends to disclose the information and invite the employee to make submissions on the question whether such information ought to be disclosed."
Furthermore, the division bench of the High Court of Delhi in the decision of Harish Kumar v. Provost Marshall cum Appellate Authority, LPA No. 253/2012 dated 30.03.2012 while denying information in a matrimonial dispute had held as under:
"10......................It was further held that when any personal information sought has no nexus with any public activity or interest, the same is not to be provided. Finding the information sought in that case to be even remotely having no relationship with any public activity or interest and rather being a direct invasion in private life of another, information was denied. ..............It was further observed that personal information including tax returns, medical records etc. cannot be disclosed unless the bar against disclosure is lifted by establishing sufficient public interest in disclosure and disclosure even then can be made only after duly notifying the third parry and after considering his views. It was yet further held that the nature of restriction on right to privacy is of different order; in the case of private individuals, the degree of protection afforded is greater; in the case of public servants, the degree of protection can be lower, depending upon what is at stake; this is so because a public servant is expected to act for public good in the discharge of his duties and is accountable for them. This Court in Vijay Prakash Vs. UOI AIR 2010 Del 7 also, where information of an estranged wife's service record was sought, held that the transparency values have to be reconciled with legal interest protected by law, such as other fundamental rights, particularly the fundamental right to privacy."
The Commission would also like to quote an observation made by the Commission in the case of Vijay Prakash Vs PIO, Air Force, dated 17.12.2008 reproduced as under:
"During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that the information sought was required for producing before the Competent Court where a dispute was pending between him and Dr. Sandhya Verma and the information was necessary for fair trial. The Respondents submitted that the information was necessary pertained to personal information concerning Dr. Sandhya Verma, a Third Party and had no relationship to any public interest or activity and, therefore, exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act. The information which has been sought includes, attested copies of all the leave application forms submitted by Dr. S. Verma since she was posted to 4 AFSB, copies of nomination of DSOP/other official documents with financial implications and record of investment made and reflected thereon in service documents along with the nominations thereof, if explicitly made. The information sought is obviously personal information concerning Dr. SandhyaVerma, a Third Party. It is immaterial if Dr. SandhyaVerma happens to be the wife of the Appellant. The information sought does not seem to have any relationship to any public interest or public activity and has been expressly sought to be used as evidence in a dispute in a Court pending between the Appellant and Dr. SandhyaVerma. The decision of the CPIO, upheld by the Appellate Authority, in denying the information by invoking the exemption provision of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act seem to be absolutely right and just. We find no reason to interfere with the decision of the Appellate Authority and, thus, reject the appeal."
The Hon'ble Delhi high Court in W.P. (C) 803/2009 in the matter of Ved Prakash Vs UOI and Ors has also upheld the above mentioned CIC Order while making following observation:
As discussed earlier, the "public interest" argument of the Petitioner is premised on the plea that his wife is a public servant; he is in litigation with her, and requires information, - in the course of a private dispute - to establish the truth of his allegations. The CIC has held that there is no public interest element in the disclosure of such personal information, in the possession of the information provider, i.e. the Indian Air Force. This court concurs with the view, on an application of the principles discussed. The petitioner has, not been able to justify how such disclosure would be in "public interest" : the litigation is, pure and simple, a private one. The basic File no.: CIC/ADIMV/A/2017/179395/MOHRD protection afforded by virtue of the exemption (from disclosure) enacted under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be lifted or disturbed.
It was further brought to the notice of the Commission that the appellant has filed multiple RTI applications which more or less cover the same subject matter, seeking information about his wife. The Commission notes that the appellant by way of filing RTI applications is trying to settle his personal score with his estranged wife and while doing so, he has filed numerous RTI applications with the college where his wife is working on ad-hoc basis. However, the CPIO did not produce any documentary evidence to support his contention. The Commission however, takes a hint from the fact that another matter of the same appellant is listed for hearing on the same date revolving around the similar matter. Presumably, this habit of filing multiple RTI applications may be to pressurize the public authority to disclose the information related to his wife to be used in settling the marital dispute between the two. The appellant should note that every single repetition of a RTI application would unnecessarily demand the valuable time of the public authority, First Appellate Authority and if it also reaches the Second Appeal, that of the Commission. Such RTI applications of repetitive kind lead to obstruction of the flow of information with respect to other applicants and defeats the very purpose of the RTI Act. The said Act should be used wisely and responsibly.
At this point, the Commission concurs with the reliance placed by the CPIO on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr Vs Aditya Bandhopadyay and others.
Also, the Commission would like to quote verbatim the observation made by the Hon'ble Delhi Court in the matter of Rajni Mendiratta Vs Directorate of Education, W.P(C) No 7911/2015 as below:
Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto.' A more lucid rationale can be drawn in the facts of the present matter by referring to the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that: '... "In the opinion of this Court, the primary duty of the officials of Ministry of Defence is to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India. If the limited manpower and resources of the Directorate General, Defence Estates as well as the Cantonment Board are devoted to address such meaningless queries, this Court is of the opinion that the entire office of the Directorate General, Defence Estates Cantonment Board would come to stand still.' 'This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law."
Decision:
In view of the foregoing, the Commission upholds the submission of the CPIO that the information sought by the appellant is purely personal information exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, hence no relief can be provided to the appellant. The appellant is also advised to restrain from filing multiple RTI applications regarding the similar subject matter and to use the RTI Act in a more constructive and responsible manner.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date