Central Information Commission
Shri N. Saini vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 23 March, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01500
Dated, the 23rd March, 2009.
Appellant : Shri N. Saini
Respondents : Life Insurance Corporation of India
This matter came up for hearing on 05.03.2009 pursuant to Commission's notice dated 06.02.2009. Appellant was absent when called. Respondents were represented by Shri S.C. Sitole, Manager (CRM) & CPIO.
2. Appellant's RTI-application dated 14.08.2008 comprised four queries, which are attached to this order as Annexe.
3. CPIO, through his communication dated 25.08.2008 and Appellate Authority, through his decision dated 17.09.2008 declined to disclose the requested information on the ground that information at Sl.No.(a) was held in confidence on behalf of the petitioners who filed complaints against the appellant (who is an employee of the public authority), and therefore could not be disclosed to the appellant. As regards query at Sl.No.(b), respondents' refusal to disclose information was on account of an on going investigation into the matters brought to the public authority's notice by various complainants, which being a confidential process could not be disclosed to the appellant. Information at Sl.No.(c) was declined on the same grounds as urged for information at item (b). Information at Sl.No.(d) was also declined on the same ground as (b) and (c) including the additional ground that this did not comprise "information" within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
4. Appellant has challenged these contentions of the respondents. Appellant's second-appeal states nothing as regards the justification for overruling the conclusions of the Appellate Authority.
5. To say the least, it is very curious RTI-application. Appellant is an employee of the public authority, against whom the public authority has received complaints from the members of the public and has initiated, apparently, an investigative proceeding. The petitioner (appellant) sensing that there were complaints against him and that having taken cognizance of such complaints, public authority has initiated an investigative action against him, has cleverly used the provisions of the RTI Act to access all that information. He also wishes AT-23032009-08.doc Page 1 of 4 to access such other information as consultations between the Divisional / Regional and the head office, as well as within the offices in the matter of these complaints and the consequent investigation.
6. The point for consideration is whether public authorities are entitled to keep confidential what complaints third-parties filed before the public authorities against such authorities' employees and what action public authorities take to satisfy themselves about the veracity of these complaints in regard to the culpability of their employee against whom these complaints are lodged.
7. To my mind, the matter is about whether confidentiality in such matters is imperative within the scope of Section 11(1) of the Act. It is important to note that the information which the appellant has sought to access in the present matter relates to third-parties in two ways: first, the members of the public who filed complaints against this appellant ⎯ or for that reason against any employee of the public authority ⎯ hoping that the public authority could keep this information confidential and take it to its logical conclusion. There is an everpresent possibility of harm caused to the complainant, should the fact of his filing the complaint against an officer of the public authority is brought out into the open. Second, the public authority itself ⎯ at its various levels ⎯ who routinely hold background investigations into such complaints to decide whether a full-fledged enquiry should be launched given the seriousness of these complaints. Their case for confidentiality is that premature disclosure of any action initiated by them in respect of the employee complained against, has the potentiality to compromise that enquiry including the officers given the charge to conduct the preliminary or the regular enquiry. The public authority, who is a third-party within the meaning of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, can no-doubt agree to voluntarily make public the proceedings of the enquiry, but they may, for reasons to be stated in that regard, choose to do the contrary, i.e. keep the information confidential.
8. In either of the two cases cited above, the reasons for keeping the information confidential is to be stated and examined for its validity within Section 11(1). Therefore, an examination of the reasons for non-disclosure and maintenance of confidentiality under Section 11(1) of an admittedly third-party information is to be within the scope of Section 11(1) itself.
9. In this context, it is also instructive to view the Section 11(1) of the RTI Act in the context of Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. This latter Section states "no public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence when he considers that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure."
AT-23032009-08.doc Page 2 of 4
10. The interpretation of this Section of the Indian Evidence Act by the Courts has been that for a stated public purpose or interest, a public authority may claim to keep confidential any information delivered into its control, including communications between officers and various units of the public authority in relation to that confidential communication.
11. In the present case, confidentiality of the communication has been claimed on behalf of the supplier of the information, i.e. the complainant, as well as the public authority who is supposed to examine and process that information to verify if the complaints had any validity and if so, to discipline the officer who is the object of it. It has been argued that disclosure of the complaint to the very person, against whom such complaints have been made, would seriously compromise the complainant and his interests and may expose him to unforeseen risks. A public authority is expected to remain sensitive about what members of the general public had to say about a public servant. Any disclosure of information regarding the identity of such sources of information would diminish the public authority's ability to discharge its public functions and to keep its image as a sensitive organization intact. Therefore, there is unmistakable public interest in keeping such information confidential.
12. Similarly, there is also public interest in keeping the proceedings of an enquiry against the public servant confidential as any premature disclosure of the contents of such enquiry can compromise its objectivity as well as integrity. In fact, confidentiality is a key element of the enquiry such as this especially when such an enquiry originates from the complaint filed by a member of the public.
13. Apart from the above, in matters of complaints filed by members of the public against a public servant or an employee of the public authority, if the complainant's identity is disclosed, it can lead to endangering the life or physical safety of the complainant, besides leading to the identification of the public authority's source of information. In that case, it would attract the exemption under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act as well. If the confidentiality of the communication from the general public to a public authority in regard to the functioning of that public authority's employee is allowed to be breached, it will dry up an important source of information which public authority receives from the general public about its employees. Its net impact will be promoting corruption and official apathy towards public grievances and concerns. RTI Act and its provisions cannot be interpreted to promote such a negative development as this.
14. In view of the above discussion, I find merit in the respondents' submission that the information requested by the appellant cannot be authorized to be divulged for the reasons cited above.
AT-23032009-08.doc Page 3 of 4
15. Appeal is accordingly disallowed.
16. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT-23032009-08.doc Page 4 of 4