Central Information Commission
Mr.Siddharth Bhargava vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 12 July, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No.CIC/BS/A/2012/001377/2985
12 July 2013
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Siddharth Bhargava
Flat no. 59, Rajouri Apartments,
Rajouri Garden,
Near Mayapuri Chowk,
Opposite Govt. of India Press,
Mayapuri, New Delhi- 110064
Respondent : CPIO
EPFO
Regional Office
Nidhi Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar,
Jaipur- 302005, Rajasthan
RTI application filed on : 26/11/2011
PIO replied on : 06/01/2012
First appeal filed on : 07/02/2012
First Appellate Authority order : 11/06/2012
Second Appeal received on : 04/09/2012
Information sought:
1- Kindly provide me certified/attested photocopies of records of the details of the EPF A/c i.e. EPF A/c no. & EPF A/c Statement of Smt. Neha Bhargava, from date of opening of account to till date. Moreover please do let me know the organization who is crediting PF in her account. Her full details are:
Mr. Neha Bhargava D/o Shri R. N. Bhargava A-303, Triveni Nagar, Gopalpura Bye Pass, Tonk Road, Jaipur- 302018 Mobile: 9928443398 Date of Birth: 28th November 1981.
Place of Birth: Jodhpur In additional to request above please furnish the following information: 1- Please provide me file notings and action taken reports on this application alongwith your reply.Page 1 of 4
2- Please provide certified extract from service rules which provide for departmental action against employees of your public authority for not complying with laws and rules enacted by Parliament or state assembly.
3- Please inform me date of last updating information under Section 4.1.b on your website with name, designation and office address of officer responsible for updating this information.
4- Name, address, email ID, official mobile number and designation of Transparency office if any appointed as per CIC directives vide orders Nr. CIC/AT/A/10/000111 dated 15/11/2010. If not appointed reasons on record be intimated to me. 5- Present status of compliance with sections 4.1.a and 4.1.c of RTI act by your public authority.
6- Name, address, email ID of Central Point created as directed per OM no.1/32/2007-IR dated 14/11/2007 of DoPT, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has denied the information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Sidharth Bhargava Respondent: Mr. Ajit Kumar CPIO through VC The appellant stated that he had asked for information relating to the PF account of his estranged wife Ms. Neha Bhargava but the respondents have denied the information. He argued that there are several decisions of the Commission where it has been held that there is no bar in supplying the PF and other details of a legally wedded wife to her husband. In support of his contention he quoted the following decisions of the Commission:
(i) F. No. CIC/MA/A/2007/00583, dated 10/01/2008 (A K Tiwari vs. EPFO)
(ii) F. No. CIC/MA/A/2008/00866, dated 05/08/2008 (S M Devasena vs ONGC)
(iii) F. No. CIC/MA/A/2009/000102 dated 18/03/2009 (Vipul Divya vs. Vishakhapatnam Steel Plant)
(iv) F. No. CIC/AD/A/09/00366, dated 04/05/2009 (Ms. Bindu Kirpal vs. RPO, Delhi) He emphasized that the decision cited under (i) above squarely covers the matter at hand with the EPFO being the respondent public authority. He reiterated that he is seeking information about his estranged wife and not any third party.
The CPIO contested the appellant's submissions stating that Ms. Neha Bhargava may be the estranged wife of the appellant but she is still a third party and they had carried out the process as outlined in Section 11 of the RTI Act and Ms. Bhargava vide her letter dated 29/02/2012 has vehemently objected to the disclosure of information contending (a) that she has lodged an FIR against her estranged husband and the police authorities after investigation have filed a challan, (b) that the appellant had filed a petition for restitution of marriage in Tis Hazari Court which has been dismissed, (c) her divorce petition and plea for awarding maintenance are pending before appropriate courts, (d) a case for domestic violence has been filed by her in Jaipur court against the appellant which is in progress and no information about her should be disclosed Page 2 of 4 either to him or to any other person. In support of his stand the CPIO cited the Commission's decision in file no. CIC/SG/C/2010/901457, dated 27/06/2011 (R K B Adhikari vs EPFO).
The appellant argued that all the proceedings cited by Ms. Neha Bhargava are matters before the courts and no final conclusion has been reached; further, they have nothing to do as regards the disclosure of information is concerned. He also contended that the disclosure of the information is in larger public interest as it would help to bring out the truth.
Decision notice:
The FAA in his order dated 11/06/2012 has held that the information sought cannot be disclosed being exempt under Section 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act. This is in line with the Commission's decision in appeal file no. CIC/SM/A/2010/000985 (SK Mishra Vs Department of Atomic Energy) dated 16/03/2011 in which it has been held that if the wife alleges harassment and objects to the disclosure of information which is personal in nature having no relationship to any public activity, the same need not be disclosed being exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The Supreme Court Division Bench in its judgment dated 13/12/2012 in Civil Appeal No. 9052 of 2012 Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. observed as under:-
"Another very significant provision of the Act is 8(1)(j). In terms of this provision, 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 would fall within the exempted category, unless the authority concerned is satisfied that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. It is, therefore, to be understood clearly that it is a statutory exemption which must operate as a rule and only in exceptional cases would disclosure be permitted, that too, for reasons to be recorded demonstrating satisfaction to the test of larger public interest. It will not be in consonance with the spirit of these provisions, if in a mechanical manner, directions are passed by the appropriate authority to disclose information which may be protected in terms of the above provisions."
It is also seen from the FAA's order dated 11/06/2012 that Ms. Neha Bhargava had appeared before him on 14/04/2012 and vehemently objected to the disclosure of information claiming that a domestic violence case has been registered by her against the appellant and there is a threat to her life. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 13/12/2012 Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Sayyed Hussain Abbas Rizvi & Anr [Civil appeal No. 9052 of 2012] has, inter alia, held that clause 8(1)(g) can come into play with any kind of relationship. It requires that where the disclosure of such information which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purpose, the information need not be provided. In other words if in the opinion of the concerned authority there is danger to life or possibility of danger to physical safety, the CPIO would be entitled to bring such case within the exemption of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
A division bench of the Commission in appeal no. CIC/OK/A/2006/00072, dated 06/06/2006 has, inter alia, observed that for accessing information intended to be used in matrimonial dispute Page 3 of 4 between the parties the Central Information Commission is hardly the appropriate forum and the parties can get the information through the good offices of the courts where the case is being contested In view of the foregoing the decision of the CPIO/the FAA not to disclose the information cannot be interfered with.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(A.K.Jha) Deputy Secretary and Deputy Registrar Page 4 of 4