Central Information Commission
Ms.Alka Pahuja vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 July, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001305/13299
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001305
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Ms. Alka Pahuja
17-D Pocket B
Vikas Puri
New Delhi-18
Respondent : Mr. Jasbir Singh Kaka
Public information officer & Manager Sukho Khalsa Sr. Sec. School Govt. aided school Jail Road, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 RTI application filed on : 11/11/2010 PIO replied : 13/12/2010 First appeal filed on : 11/01/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 09/02/2011 Second Appeal received on : 13/05/2011 S.No Information sought by the appellant Reply of the PIO
1. Provide certified copies of certificates( educational The information required by applicant qualification)/ Mark sheets starting from X onwards of all cannot be provided as per provision of sec teachers who were appointed in the year 2003 and 2008 8(j) of RTI Act.
2. Provide certified copy of the certificate issued by National No certificate has been issued by National Minority Commission? Minority Commission..
Grounds of the First Appeal:
Complete information not provided.
Order of the FAA:
As all the documents of candidates are physically verified by the department of education at the time of appointment. Since being a Govt. Aided school they have direct control in appointment of staff. So all appointment are as per rule. Thus as it is personal information so cannot be provided as per rule 8(j) of RTI Act.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Information provided is not complete.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent; ;
Respondent: Mr. Jasbir Singh Kaka, Public information officer & Manager;
The PIO has refused to give the information sought by the Appellant. The Appellant had sought attested copies of certificates and mark sheets of the teachers who were appointed in the year 2008. The PIO has denied this information 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 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.
The certificates of employees are given in the course of a public activity and revealing these cannot be considered as invasion on the privacy of an individual as explained above.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide attested copies of certificates and mark sheets to the Appellant before 25 July 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 07 July 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AA)