Central Information Commission
Mr.Mahendra Kumar Dixit vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 26 March, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796.
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000248/18046
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000248
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Mahendra Dixit
Ex lecturer, Head & dean Law dept.,
Chamber no 10 & 12,
Motilal Nehru Advocate Bhavan,
Civil court Compound, Kanpur -208001
Respondent : Mr. A. Allaqband
Public Information Officer & AGM UCO Bank Zonal office 28, Naval Kishore Road, Sky lark Building 3rd Floor, Hazariganj Lucknow - 226001 RTI application filed on : 02/08/2011 PIO replied : 20/08/2011 First Appeal : 01/09/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 12/09/2011 Second Appeal received on : 23/01/2012 :
Information Sought:
1. Provide the certified copy of the enquiry report dated 29/04/2006 regarding charge sheet dated 08/09/2005 of UCO bank. Copies of the reports - DR 1 , DR2 .DR 21 , DR 4.
2. Provide the copy of enquiry report including the complete facts and conclusion.
Reply of the CPIO:
The sought information is exempted under section 8 (1) (d) (e) & (j) of the RTI act.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information provided is unsatisfactory.
Order of the FAA:
FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Information provided is unsatisfactory.Page 1 of 3
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. A. Allaqband, PIO & AGM on video conference from NIC_Lucknow Studio;
The PIO states that he has denied the information based on the exemptions of 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. Parliament intended that PIOs should use this exemption very rarely and narrowly. However, it realized that there may be a temptation by PIOs to use it very widely, and hence it added a proviso as a test for PIOs to this exemption stating, 'Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.' Public servants have been used to giving information to Parliament and State Legislatures, and it would be very rarely that there would be reluctance in parting with any information when a Parliamentary question is asked. By this proviso, Page 2 of 3 Parliament recognized the primacy to the individual citizen, who lends it legitimacy. The Commission asked the PIO whether he would deny this information to Parliament. The PIO stated that he would not deny this information to Parliament.
In view of foregoing the PIO's exemption is not upheld by the Commission.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information sought by the Appellant to him before 15 April 2012.
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 26 March 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG) Page 3 of 3