Central Information Commission
Dr. Manish Verma vs Lingaya’S University on 24 February, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000107/6953
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000107
Appellant : Dr. Manish Verma,
B-45, First Floor,
Sector-33, Noida-201301,
Uttar Pradesh
Respondent : Mrs. Jyothi Budharaju
Public Information Officer & Advisor
Lingaya's University,
C-72, 2nd Floor, Shivalik,
Maliviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017
RTI application filed on : 28/10/2009
PIO replied : 17/12/2009
First Appeal filed on : 13/12/2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned.
Second Appeal Received on : 11/01/2009
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 21/01/2010
Hearing Held on : 24/02/2010
Information sought:
Appellant sought information regarding three personnel employed by Lingaya's University, their specific positions & department of each of the personnel, date of joining, their qualification, present salary & benefits, any action taken against them. Vide last point no. 14 (out of 14 in number), the Appellant sought the criteria for selection of faculty at the position held by Ms. Shuchi Verma (one of the personnel employed by Lingaya's University(Administration)).
PIO's Reply:
"The information sought cannot be supplied as it relates to personal information and the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individuals. Hence Appellant's request has been denied."
Grounds for First Appeal:
No response had been received by the Appellant.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
Not enclosed.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Denial of information.Page 1 of 3
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Dr. Manish Verma;
Respondent: Mrs. Jyothi Budharaju, Public Information Officer & Advisor;
The PIO has refused to give the information on the ground that the information sought is covered under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
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 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 been given in the course of 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. Also when a Citizen provides information in discharge of a statutory obligation this too is a public activity.
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 the privacy of a Citizen. In those circumstances special provisionss of the law apply;- usually with certain safeguards. Therefore 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 to all humanbeings worldwide. However, the concept of 'privacy' is a cultural notion, related to social norms, and different societies would look at these differently. Therefore referring to the UK Data protection act or the laws of other countries to define 'privacy' cannot be considered a valid exercise to constrain the Citizen's fundamental Right to Information in India. Parliament has not codified the right to privacy 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. The Supreme of India has ruled that Citizens have a right to know about charges against candidates for elections as well as details of their assets, since they desire to offer themselves for public service. It is obvious then that those who are public servants cannot claim exemption from disclosure of charges against them or details of their assets. Given our dismal record of misgovernance and rampant corruption which colludes to deny Citizens their essential rights and dignity, it is in the fitness of things that the Citizen's Right to Information is given greater primacy with regard to privacy. Therefore we can state that disclosure of information such as assets of a Public servant, -which is routinely collected by the Public authority and routinely provided by the Public servants,- cannot Page 2 of 3 be construed as an invasion on the privacy of an individual. 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 or phone tapping.
Thus information provided by individuals in fulfillment of statutory requirements or to get a job or information like attendance at work will not be covered by the exemption under Section 8 (1)
(j).
The Commission therefore rules that query-6 & 7 of the Appellant which seeks the marital status of Ms. Shuchi Verma and her residential address is information which could be considered an invasion on the privacy of an individual and hence should not be given. The PIO will provide the rest of the information to the Appellant.
The Appellant points out that the Section - 4 disclosures of the public authority has not yet been made. The PIO is directed ensure that the Complete Section - 4 disclosure is made available before 20 March 2010 and compliance report will be sent to the Commission before 30 March 2010.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the complete information to the Appellant except query no. 6 & 7 before 10 March 2010.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 24 February 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj Page 3 of 3