Central Information Commission
Vikas Jatav vs Directorate General Of Vigilance on 17 April, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DGVCE/A/2023/656152
Vikas Jatav .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/O the Director General of Vigilance,
Hotel Samrat, Kautilya Marg,
Chanakyapuri, New Delhi - 110021 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08.04.2025
Date of Decision : 16.04.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.09.2023
CPIO replied on : 12.10.2023
First appeal filed on : 12.10.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 03.11.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23.12.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 18.09.2023 seeking the following information:
"The Central Information Commission has said in the decision of the case "CIC/DGVCE/A/2022/650 467 + CIC/DGVCE/A/2022/665005" that;Page 1 of 16
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. P. Gupta v President of India, [AIR 1982 SC 149], with reference to 'public interest' it has been maintained that:
"Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, 'diffused' rights and interests vindicate public interest... [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected." Emphasis Supplied And, in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others [Appeal (Civil) 4937-4940 of 1998], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"the interest of general public (public interest) is of a wide importance covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution [i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy]". Emphasis Supplied Since there is no material on record to ascribe larger public interest in the disclosure of the information related to the averred third parties in any of the above referred contexts.
Therefore, it is clear from the decision of the Central Information Commission that "in the information letter";
1. I have to provide facts so that Larger Public Interest can be determined.
2. According to the Supreme Court case S. P. Gupta v President of India, [AIR 1982 SC 149], I have to prove that my "legal rights or liabilities are affected".
3. I have to prove that as per the Supreme Court case State of Gujarat vs. According to Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others [Appeal (Civil) 4937-4940 of 1998], which one of the following subjects is related to "Public Interest"?
Page 2 of 16"covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution [i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy
1. Material Facts 2. The facts are becoming clear from the letter number 886/RC00072015A004 dated 14.02.2017 sent by CBI to The Additional Director General, Director General of Vigilance New Delhi as to what subject the information I am asking for is related to. (Copy enclosed) Apart from this, as material facts, I am attaching with this information letter a copy of the decision of the CBI Special Court given on 24 September 2016 in the case CBI vs. Vikas Jatav (03/2015).
2. Legal rights In paragraph number 101 of the decision of case number 03/2015 (copy attached) of CBI Special Court, Dehradun, it is said that;
"इस लए न तो घटना के समय न ह तरु ं त बात अ भयु त के पास कोई अवसर था क वह यह प ट कर पाता क उ त कैसे #र$वत के नह ं बि&क कंस&ट' ट के ह( तथा जब उसने यह झठ ू - कहानी /न म0त कर ल तब एक 1दखावट जांच अपने 5वभाग से श8 ु करा अपने प9 म' बयान 1दलाकर इस मामले म' लाभ लेने का :यास कया. अतः इस संबंध म' : तत ु बचाव सा=य पण ू 0 8प से झठ ू ा है तथा ?यायालय म' सशपथ अ भयु त @ी 5वकास जाटव को बचाने के लए : तत ु कया गया है ."
In Paragraph Number 170 of this decision, it is said that;
यह भी द श0त होता है क वत0मान मामले क घटना के लगभग सात माह उपरांत अ भयु त के 5वभाग ने एक जांच आरBभ कर कुछ Dयान लखकर अ भयु त को E टाचार के मुकFदमे से बचाए जाने का :यास कया है , उ त जांच भी उन अGधकार Fवारा : ता5वत क गयी िजनके Fवारा सBपण ू 0 :करण सै शन दे ते समय दे खा गया है तथा उ त जांच : ता5वत करने से कुछ समय पूव0 ह िजनका Dयान ?यायालय म' दज0 कया गया है . यह प ठ द श0त होता है क यह एक सामा?य 5वभागीय जांच का मामला नह है , बि&क कंह -न-कंह , अ भयु त के प9 म' सा=य एकH करने हे तु जानबझ ु कर क गयी काय0वाह है . य1द सरकार 5वभाग ह इस :कार एक E ट लोक सेवक का साथ द' गे, तो कस :कार सरकार क E टाचार कम करने क मुह म कामयाब हो पायेगी. अतः Page 3 of 16 ?यायालय यह उGचत समझता है क इस सBब?ध म' भी उGचत जांच स9म तर पर होनी चा1हए क यI एव कन प#रि तGथयो म' यह जांच 5वभाग Fवारा क गयी.
CBI has already informed about this decision to The Additional Director General, Director General of Vigilance New Delhi through letter number 886/RC00072015A004 dated 14.02.2017.
The CBI Court believes that Vikas Jatav "tried to take advantage of this case by starting a fake investigation (Ostentatious Investigation) in his department and getting statements in his favor. Therefore, I was convicted because the defense evidence presented by me in this regard was declared completely false. Therefore, the subject of "My legal right to do my job" and "My legal right to freedom" have arisen due to the preliminary investigation initiated by the government employees of the department who have also been punished by the department due to the CBI Special Court Decision 03/2015. Therefore, due to my "Legal Rights"
being affected, "Larger Public Interest" is being generated as per the Supreme Court case S. P. Gupta v President of India, [AIR 1982 SC 149].
3. Moral Oath regarding "Moral" is mandatory taken by every employee of the Central Government department as per order "MHA OM No. 139/52- Estts. dated 31-7-1952 and 28-8-54 read with OM No. 31/1/63- Estts.(A) dated 26-12-1963 & OM No. 31/3/63-Estt. (A) dt. 23-3-1964" The following oath is taken that;
"I, A. B., do swear/solemnly affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to India and to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, and that I will carry out the duties of my office loyally, honestly, and with impartiality."
(So help me God!)"
In the decision CIC/DGVCE/A/2022/650467 given by the Central Information Commission has cited the Supreme Court decision "State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others [Appeal (Civil) 4937-4940 of 1998]"for the issue of "larger public interest". In which it is said that;
"the interest of general public (public interest) is of a wide importance covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution [i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy]". Emphasis Supplied Page 4 of 16 Honorable Supreme Court in its decision regarding "Moral" in Praveen Bhatia Versus Union of India & Ors. (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1536 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18067 of 2006) said in paragraph number 11 that; "in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Singh Ex. Constable (AIR 1992 SC 2188), it was held that the term "misconduct" may involve moral turpitude. It must be improper or wrong behavior, unlawful behavior, willful in character, forbidden act, a transgression of established and definite rule of action or code of conduct.
The CBI Court, while writing in its decision that "एक सामा?य 5वभागीय जांच का मामला नह है , बि&क कंह -न-कंह , अ भयु त के प9 म' सा=य एकH करने हे तु जानबुझकर क गयी काय0वाह है ", has admitted that the officers did this willfully. Therefore, in the above mentioned paragraph of this decision "State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others" it is said that "Larger Public Interest" will arise due to "Morals".
The information sought by me is related to the "Morals" of departmental employees while performing departmental work. Even after taking oath, Government Employees behaved "immorally" in the execution of departmental work and harmed Loyally and Honesty, hence "larger public interest" arises.
Therefore, as per the decision of the Central Information Commission;
1. I have given the material facts on record.
2. Hence, it is being proved that the information I have sought is directly related to my legal rights which are being affected.
3. The information I have sought is related to the "morality" of the government employee towards his department and the public. "Larger public interest" is being generated due to his doing "immoral" work even after taking the oath.
Therefore, you are requested to provide me the following information regarding the action taken by your office on the basis of CBI's letter number 886/RC00072015A004 dated 14.02.2017;
1. Give a copy of the charge sheet/show cause notice given to the concerned officers against whom investigation was conducted.
2. Give a copy of the reply given in defense by the concerned officers.
Page 5 of 163. Give a copy of the entire proceeding.
4. Give information about what decision was taken in this proceeding, and give a copy of the document related to this decision.
5. Did you send a letter to CBI in response to this letter?, as demanded by CBI. Please give information about it. (Your department had said in the hearing before the Central Information Commission bench on 6th September that Vikas Jatav would be informed in this regard within the next 15 days.)
6. In column number 5, give the copy of the letter you sent to CBI and the copy of attached document with it."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 12.10.2023 stating as under:
"Point No.1 The documents sought by the applicant cannot be made available as it is the third party information/personal information related to vigilance investigation.
Point No.2 Same, as per Point No. 1 above.
Point No.3 Same, as per Point No. 1 above.
Point No.4 The mater has been disposed off. Administrative warnings have been issued to officer concerned. Copies cannot be provided as information related to third party/personal Information.
Point No.5 The file has been re-created from the source, however the desired information is not available in the recreated file.
Point No.6 Same, as per Point No. 5 above."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.10.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 03.11.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds:
".............Grounds of second appeal Page 6 of 16 "Why and how" has not even been discussed in the first appellate order. My appeal has been rejected by writing only three sentences. While the Central Information Officer is not giving information only on the basis of 8(1)(j), but the first appellate authority is copy pasting two other sections and saying that information cannot be given as per these.
The Central Information Officer has not given me information on the basis of 8(1)(j). Whereas;
1. In the landmark decision of the Central Information Commission Vasudeva Prabhu.PIO, Department of Posts (CIC/POSTS/A/2017/130088), it has been explained in detail on the basis of merit that the initiation of investigation in relation to the official work of a Government employee will not be called personal information but related to public interest.
2. In The Decision of Hon'ble Central Information Commission Vasudeva Prabhu. PIO, Department of Posts (CIC/POSTS/A/2017/130088) dated 18.06.2018, it has been explained in detail that Supreme Court decision "Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner and Others"
case cannot prevent a Government servant from giving information in case of misconduct. In this case, a case of "cheating" was filed against the Government employee and punishment was given after the charge sheet, which the commission said to be a matter of complete public interest. In the information I have sought, the Central Information Officer himself is telling that the concerned officers have been punished after conducting an inquiry on the orders of the CBI Special Court, Dehradun. Now it has completely become a matter related to public interest. "Vasudeva Prabhu.PIO, Department of Posts" is fully applicable to my case. It has been said in Judgment of this case that;
"33. Coming back to case at hand, Commission found that the public authority cannot use Girish case to deny the information when the information sought has such a close relation to public activity with a lot of public servant.It is clear that public authority is trying to hide behind Girish order wrongfully. Only when the inquiry and action against public servant was not related to office and public, CPIO can deny. The allegation against public servant in this case is fraud and the CPIO stated that it was proved. He did not elaborate further. If fraud is proved and concerned officer is punished, how does its disclosure cause unwarranted Page 7 of 16 invasion of officer's privacy? CPIO did not justify this protection. If a postal officer is involved in fraud, he cannot represent the public authority & people have a right to know about it. Hence, denying under the pretext of personal information is incorrect and illegal. The Commission directs the respondent authority to provide complete information in the form of certified copies, within 10 days from the date of receipt of this Order. Disposed of."
4. 'Privacy' and 'personal' have been explained in detail in a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajgopal v State of Tamilnadu [(1996) 6 SCC 632]. It is said in paragraph number 26 of this decision of the Supreme Court that;
Expressions 'privacy' and 'personal' were defined and explained by the division bench of the Supreme Court consisting of B P Jeevan Reddy, S C Sen, JJ in R Rajgopal v State of Tamilnadu13. Supreme Court summarized the law based on decisions in paragraph 26 of Rajgopal: (1) the right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Art. 21. It is a "right to be let alone." A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child bearing and education among other matters. None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent - whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages. Position may, however, be different, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy. (2) The rule aforementioned is subject to the exception, that any publication concerning the aforementioned aspects becomes unobjectionable if such publication is based upon public records including Court records. This is for the reason that once a matter becomes a matter of public record, the right to privacy no longer exists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press and media among others. We are, however, of the opinion that in the interests of decency (Article 19(2)) an exception must be carved out to this rule, viz., a female who is the victim of a sexual assault, kidnap, abduction or a like offense should not further be subjected to the indignity of her name and the incident being published in press/ media. (3) There is yet another exception to the Rule in (1) above - indeed, this is not an exception but an independent rule. In the case of public officials, it is obvious, right to privacy, or for that matter, the remedy of action for damages is simply not available with Page 8 of 16 respect to their acts and conduct relevant to the discharge of their official duties."
5. In the Civil Appeal No.10044 of 2010 CPIO, Supreme Court of India V/s Subhash Chandra Agarwal case, a 5-judge constitutional bench has uphold New Delhi High Court's "LPA No. 501 of 2009" and said in decision that;
"In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss Civil Appeal No.2683 of 2010 and uphold the judgment dated 12th January, 2010 of the Delhi High Court in LPA No. 501 of 2009 which had upheld the order passed by the CIC directing the CPIO, Supreme Court of India to furnish information on the judges of the Supreme Court who had declared their assets"
The Constitution Bench has upheld the decision of New Delhi High Court's LPA No. 501 of 2009, In Para no. 14 of this LPA, it is written that;
"The nature of restriction on the right of privacy, however, as pointed out by the learned single Judge, is of a different order; in the case of private individuals, the degree of protection afforded to be greater; in the case of public servants, the degree of protection can be lower, depending on what is at stake. This is so because a public servant is expected to act for the public good in the discharge of his duties and is accountable for them.
It is being proved from the judgment part of Civil Appeal No.10044 of 2010 CPIO, Supreme Court of India V/s Subhash Chandra Agarwal that the public has the right to know about the investigation initiated on the misconduct of a government employee in his official work.
6. In the Girish R. Deshpande vs CIC and other (SLP© NO. 27734/2012 Dated 03.10.2012 Judgment of Supreme Court, The information recipient Sh. Girish R Deshpande had sought information regarding an officer Mr. Anant Baliram Lute, Enforcement Officer, Office of the Provident Fund Commissioner in 15 points, these 15 points have been described by the Supreme Court in para number 3 of its decision. Out of these 15 points, in point number 4, a copy of the investigation initiated on the personal income tax of the officer was sought, which was not given, but in points number 12 and 13, a copy of the departmental investigation initiated in relation to the official work of the Page 9 of 16 officer was sought. It was accepted and a copy of the departmental inquiry was given.
7. So, '"Public interest" is also clear from the case of Central Information Commission in "Vasudeva Prabhu.PIO, Department of Posts (CIC/POSTS/A/2017/130088)" and, Supreme Court in Rajgopal v State of Tamilnadu [(1996) 6 SCC 632] "Girish R. Deshpande vs CIC" & "Civil Appeal No.10044 of 2010 CPIO, Supreme Court of India V/s Subhash Chandra Agarwal" and that "All such information should be considered as "Public Interest" in which such information has been sought, which is related to the official work of a public servant, which was given to him by the department, so he is answerable for his "Conduct" to the public in every work assigned by the department.
8. Therefore, you are requested to accept my appeal and order the CPIO to give Information me. The type of information I have sought is in relation to the departmental inquiry related to the official work of a government employee and on the basis of merit in the decision of the Central Information Commission Vasudeva Prabhu.PIO, Department of Posts (CIC/POSTS/A/2017/130088), it has already been decided after explaining in detail that the departmental inquiry initiated in relation to the official work of a government employee is not personal information but a matter of public interest., yet if the bench does not accept it then my appeal may be transferred to the higher bench as per the decision of the Supreme Court in S.Kasi Versus State through the Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 452 of 2020)" that It is well settled that a coordinate Bench cannot take a contrary view and in event there was any doubt, a coordinate Bench only can refer the matter for consideration by a Larger Bench .
A written submission dated 03.04.2025 (copy marked to the appellant) has been filed by Shri Nema Ram Manda, Assistant Commissioner (Vig.)-cum-CPIO which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:
"...5. 2ND APPEAL OF RTI APPLICANT:- Being aggrieved, the Appellant has filed a Second Appeal before the Hon'ble CIC, New Delhi which is listed for hearing on 08.04.2025 at 11:15 AM.Page 10 of 16
6. SUBMISSION OF THE DEPARTMENT:- In the matter of RTI Application dated 18.09:2023, following submission is made as under:
Information sought on Point No. 1 to 3: it is reiterated that the copy of approval of the Competent Authority to initiate investigation under Section 17A of the PC Act, 1988 cannot be provided in terms of under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Point No. 4: The information has already been provided to the Applicant that Administrative Warnings (AW) have been issued to the concerned officer. Copies of what decision was taken in this proceedings cannot be provided in terms of Section 8(1)(e) 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as information is related to third party/personal information.
Point No. 5 & 6: The file dealt with the matter had been re-created from the source. The revised reply has been sent to Appellant on 17.11.2023, as directed by the CIC vide Order 09.10.2023.
6.2 Kind attention is also invited towards the relevant Para (Para-6) of Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner in the Case No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000617 dated 16.09.2029 in the matter of K. L. Bablani Vs. Directorate General of Vigilance, Customs & Central Excise, wherein it is stated that: - "6. In most cases, the purpose is to find out the identity of those officers who had taken favourable and those who had taken unfavourable view of the conduct of such employees in recording the file-notes. The employees are aware that it is these notes, which eventually lead to decisions for, or against, them by the competent authority and want, for their own different purposes, to gain access to the identities of those recording the notes as well as the notes recorded to pursue their agendas about, or against, the officers recording those notes. It has happened in a few cases that even bona-fide comments made in such sensitive files by officers, when disclosed to the person in respect of whom such comments were made, brought retribution to the officer recording the note in the shape of a court preceding, a notice for damages and so on. In some cases, even intimidation was resorted to.
Frequently, officers recording such notes were juniors to those in respect of whom the case was being processed. Naturally, no officer recording the note wanted his identity to be disclosed lest he became the victim himself later at the hands of the senior person, whose conduct it became his duty to examine at some stage. Confidentiality of note-files, therefore, is an entirely wholesome principle conducive to good governance. Any compromise with Page 11 of 16 objectivity in processing matters extant in the life, is potentially damaging to governance by exposing those entrusted with the charge of processing the matter to, under, and sometimes, intimidating, scrutiny by interest parties."
6.3. In view of above, the information provided by the CPIO subsequently upheld by the First Appellant Authority in the subject RTI matter appears to be correctly disposed of."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through videoconference.
Respondent: Shri Nema Ram Mandal, Assistant Commissioner/CPIO along with Shri Dinesh Chandra Singh, Superintendent (V.O.) present in person.
The appellant while reiterating the contents of instant appeal restricted his claim to point No. 4 of RTI Application by contending that copy of administrative warning letters issued to the erring officers should be provided to him on the ground that a CBI inquiry was initiated against him only because the said erring officers in connivance with the CBI officials initiated a departmental inquiry against the Appellant, further, the case of which was also dragged to the Court. He urged the Commission to direct the respondent to provide requested information.
The Respondent by inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of his written submission stated that point-wise reply along with relevant permissible information has already been provided to the appellant. As regards the action taken against the erring officials, he apprised the Commission that firstly the issuance of administrative warning letters was already informed to the appellant, however, copy of the said letters was not shared with the appellant as he was not the party and it contains elements of personal information of third party officers, disclosure of which is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.Page 12 of 16
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the parties and perusal of records observes that main premise of instant appeal was denial of administrative warning letters issued to the erring officers under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act in response to point No. 4 of RTI Application. On the other hand, the respondent claimed that as regards the action taken against the erring officials, it was already informed to the appellant that administrative warning letters have been issued to the officers, however, copy of the said letters was not shared with the appellant as he was not a party to the same and it contains the elements of personal information of third party officers, disclosure of which is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The Commission arrives at a conclusion that the respondent has appropriately replied informing about the action taken by way of issuing warning letters to the erring officers. And has appropriately denied sharing a copy of warning letters issued to the officers as it includes the elements of personal information of third party which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the 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, xxx
(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 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 Page 13 of 16 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, 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..."
Further, the Commission is not inclined to accept the vague contention of the Appellant of a larger public interest subsisting in the matter keeping in view of catena of judgments of the superior Courts as under with respect to the aspect of larger public interest:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.9052 OF 2012] observed as under:
"23. The expression 'public interest' has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression 'public interest' must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression 'public interest', like 'public purpose', is not capable of any precise definition. It does not Page 14 of 16 have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs. [State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (AIR 1952 SC 252)]. It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recommendation and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)]. Emphasis Supplied "24. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision. Certain matters, particularly in relation to appointment, are required to be dealt with great confidentiality."
".... Similarly, there may be cases where the disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. All these protections have to be given their due implementation as they spring from statutory exemptions. It is not a decision simpliciter between private interest and public interest. It is a matter where a constitutional protection is available to a person with regard to the right to privacy. Thus, the public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance factor between right to privacy and right to information with the purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be served in the larger public interest, particularly when both these rights emerge from the constitutional values under the Constitution of India." Emphasis Supplied Similarly, in another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. P. Gupta v President of India, [AIR 1982 SC 149], with reference to 'public interest' it has been maintained that:
"Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, 'diffused' rights and interests vindicate public interest... [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected." Emphasis Supplied Page 15 of 16 And, in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others [Appeal (Civil) 4937-4940 of 1998], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"the interest of general public (public interest) is of a wide importance covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution [i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy]". Emphasis Supplied Since the Respondent has appropriately discharged his onus for denial of information as per Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Director General of Vigilance, Third Floor, Hotal Samarat, Kautilaya Marg, Chankyapuri, New Delhi - 110021 Page 16 of 16 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)