Central Information Commission
Mr.Daljit Singh vs Corporation Bank on 19 April, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000528/18488
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000528
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Daljit Singh,
S/o Shri Satnam Singh,
R/o 23/7, Friend's Colony,
Opp. D.A.V. College,
Jalandhar
Respondent : Mr. Rajiv Sharma
Public Information Officer & Chief Manager Corporation Bank, Zonal Office, SCO16, Sec 32 - A, Ludhiana, Punjab RTI application filed on : 29/10/2011 PIO replied : 11/11/2011 First appeal filed on : 25/11/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 21/12/2011 Second Appeal received on : 13/02/2012 Information Sought:
The Appellant had sought information with regard to the Branch Manager Mr. Jagdish of Corporation Bank at 358 GTB Nagar and has asked for the certified copies of the same:
1) When did he join?
2) In what all branches has he worked till date and how many and which loans have been passed by him?
3) What is his salary and what are his liabilities?
4) How much income tax is paid by him?
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
The PIO replied that the information sought cannot be provided as it is the personal information and is exempt under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information denied by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA upheld the reply of the PIO and denied the information claiming exemption under section 8(1)
(j) of the RTI Act.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Information denied both by the PIO and the FAA.Page 1 of 3
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Daljit Singh on video conference from NIC-Jalandhar Studio; Respondent: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Public Information Officer & Chief Manager on video conference from NIC-Ludhiana;
The PIO has refused information claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. As regards the first three queries it cannot be claimed that these would be exempt under 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 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 provisions 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 human beings 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 Court 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.
The information sought in query 1 and 02 are information relating to the work of an employee and as regards query 03 regarding the salaries this information has to be provided suo-moto as per the Section-4.
Page 2 of 3The PIO states that the information regarding the loan sanction by Branch Manager Mr. Jagdish would not be available in the compiled form since he has been in many braches. If the information is available in the compiled form this should be provided otherwise it would be difficult to compile it would not be provided.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information on queries 01 to 03 to the Appellant as per available records to the Appellant before 15 May 2012. 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 19 April 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SS) Page 3 of 3