Central Information Commission
Harpal Singh vs Indian Navy on 11 January, 2023
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no. CIC/INAVY/A/2022/100913
In the matter of
Harpal Singh
... Appellant
VS
The Central Public Information Officer,
Flag Officer Commanding,
Headquarters Karnataka Naval Area
Naval Base Karwar,
Karnataka-581308.
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 14/07/2021 CPIO replied on : 12/10/2021 First appeal filed on : 08/11/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 08/12/2021 Second Appeal Filed on : 01/01/2022 Date of Hearing : 11/01/2023 Date of Decision : 11/01/2023 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: Lt. Commander Dayananda Mesta, APIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
- Provide name, category and apprentice token number of 13 Apprentices of Machinist Trade, who were recruited in NSRY Karwar in Feb. 2012. Grounds for filing Second Appeal:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.1
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant was not present at the VC venue despite notice sent vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED247361197IN.
The APIO submitted that they do not have the relevant records as recruitment was done by HQWNC.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 12.10.2021 replied to the appellant and stated that no records are held with NSRY (Kar) with respect to ex-apprentice absorption/recruitment of information as sought by the applicant. The FAA vide order dated 08.12.2021 held that NSRY (Kar) does not have relevant records as recruitment was done by HQWNC.
The Commission observed that even if the records were available, the same cannot be given, as the information sought is purely personal to the third parties and no larger public interest was demonstrated in the second appeal. This bench is relying on the ratio laid down in the case of CPIO ... vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal on 13 November, 2019 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it was held as under:
"36. If one's right to know is absolute, then the same may invade another's right to privacy and breach confidentiality, and, therefore, the former right has to be harmonised with the need for personal privacy, confidentiality of information and effective governance. The RTI Act captures this interplay of the competing rights under clause (j) to Section 8(1) and Section 11 . While clause
(j) to Section 8(1) refers to personal information as distinct from information relating to public activity or interest and seeks to exempt disclosure of such information, as well as such information which, if disclosed, would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of an individual, unless public interest warrants its disclosure, Section 11 exempts the disclosure of 'information or record...which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party'. By differently wording and indicting the challenge that privacy and confidentiality throw to information rights, the RTI Act also 2 recognises the interconnectedness, yet distinctiveness between the breach of confidentiality and invasion of privacy, as the former is broader than the latter, as will be noticed below.
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."
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the information sought is not disclosable being exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as, the appellant could not establish larger public interest in this case and the information sought is related to many third parties and hence, no relief is warranted in this case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु!त)
3
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
4