Central Information Commission
Mr. Bishamber Dayal Tyagi vs Delhi Jal Board on 5 May, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opp. Ber Sarai, New Delhi -110 067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000172/3092
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000172
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Bishamber Dayal Tyagi,
House No. 38, Tyagi Mohalla,
Chhatter Pur, New Delhi-110074.
Respondent : PIO,
Delhi Jal Board, Office of the Secretary; RTI Cell, Varunalaya Ph-II, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.
RTI application filed on : 23/10/2008 PIO replied : 17/11/2008 First appeal filed on : 17/12/2008 First Appellate Authority order : 15/01/2009 Second Appeal filed on : -- Jan.2009 Particular of required information:-
1. Is it correct that Dinesh Kumar Tyagi and Ravinder Kumar Tyagi were appointed in DJB in lieu of providing land bearing Khasra No. 324 & 325 at Chhatter Pur Village for installation of Tubewell by Delhi Jal Board.
2. Is it correct that in view of the documents submitted at the time of appointment of above mentioned persons, the above said land belongs to Amar Pal, Raghubir Singh, Bishamber Singh and Chand Kiran Tyagi as ancestral property.
3. Whether DJB authorities had obtained no objection certificate before taking prossession of the above land from each of the above owners.
4. Copy of N.O.C. given by the applicant may please be provided on payment as per RTI Act, 2005.
5. Copy of N.O.C. and Khasra Girdawari submitted by Dinesh Kumar Tyagi in lieu of his appointment to DJB.
6. The required fee of Rs. 10/- has been deposited vide receipt dated.
7. The name and designation of the Appellate Authority may also be intimated.
The PIO replied.
In this connection it is informed that the concerned employees (Third Party) have objection towards disclosing their personal information, as asked by the applicant, Hence, the information sought by the applicant cannot be provided.
The Fist Appellate Authority Ordered:
"The appellant was not present but had authorized his son Sh. Sat Prakash Tyagi to represent his case. From department side, Sh. B.K. Pandey, A.C. (L&E) and Sh. A.P. Garg, ZE (S) C/o EE (South-I) represented. Sufficient information has already been furnished to the appellant".
Relevant facts emerging during hearing The following were present.
Appellant: Mr. Sat Prakash Tyagi on behalf of Mr. Bishamber Dayal Tyagi Respondent: Mr. Bipin Bihari PIO Third party: Dinesh Kumar Tyagi and Ravinder Kumar Tyagi The PIO has withheld information on Section 8 (1) (j) and the third party states he has a quarrel with the appellant, hence the information should not be given. The third parties also state that giving the information would be an invasion on their privacy.
Decision:
Since Right to Information is a fundamental right of Citizens, where denial has to be only on the basis of the exemptions under Section 8 (1), it is necessary to carefully explain the reasons of how any of the exemptions apply, when a PIO wishes to deny information on the basis of the exemptions. Merely quoting the Subsection of Section 8 is not adequate. Giving information is the rule and denial the exception.
Denial has to be justified on the basis of Section 8 (1) (j).
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 we could state that 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 some relationship to 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.
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 on the privacy of a Citizen. In those circumstances special provisos of the law apply, always with certain safeguards. Therefore it can be argued that 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 in all Countries uniformly. However, the concept of 'privacy' is related to the society and different societies' would look at these differently. India has not codified this right 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.
Therefore we can state that disclosure of information which is routinely collected by the Public authority and routinely provided by individuals, would not be an invasion on the privacy of an individual and 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. Information provided by employees to the Public authority in the normal course cannot be considered an invasion of privacy. Thus if this information is demanded under Right to Information, it cannot be said to be an invasion of privacy.
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the complete information to the appellant before 20 May 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 5 May 2009 (For any further correspondence, please mention the decision number for a quick disposal) (BK)