Central Information Commission
Anjali Bhardwaj vs Department Of Revenue on 12 June, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DOREV/A/2022/625867
Anjali Bhardwaj ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Under Secretary AD.I,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance, RTI Cell,
North Block, New Delhi-110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27/02/2023
Date of Decision : 07/06/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on :24/11/2021
CPIO replied on :03/12/2021
First appeal filed on :27/12/2021
First Appellate Authority's order :09/02/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated :07/05/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.11.2021 seeking the following information and the CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 03.12.2021 stating as under:1
"Please provide the following information regarding the Committee constituted under section 25(a) of the Central Vigilance Commission, Act, 2003 for appointing the Director of Enforcement in the Directorate of Enforcement:
S. Information Sought Reply No 1. Number of meetings of the 2 committee held since October 1, 2020 2. Date of all the meetings held 11.11.2020 and 15.11.2021 respectively since October 1, 2020 3. Copy of Information is exempted under section 8 (i) of RTI minutes/discussions/proceedi Act, 2005. ngs/verbatim recordings etc. of the proceedings of all the meetings held since October 1, 2020 4. Name and designation of Members of Meeting held on 11.11.2020: persons who attended each (a)Shri Suresh N Patel, Central Vigilance meeting since October 1, 2020 Commissioner
(b) Shri Sanjay Kothari, Commissioner, Vigilance (c) Shri Ajay Kumar Bhalla, Secretary, M/o Home Affairs & Secretary, DOPT
(d) Shri Ajay Bhushan Pandey, Finance Secretary Members of Meeting held on 15.11.2021
(a) Shri Suresh N Patel, Central Vigilance Commissioner
(b) Shri Ajay Kumar Bhalla, Secretary, M/o Home Affairs
(c) Shri Pradip Kumar Tripathi, Secretary, DOPT (d) Shri Tarun Bajaj, Secretary Revenue
5. Kindly provide a copy of any Information is exempted under section 8 (i) of RTI recommendation made by the Act, 2005.
committee regarding
extending the tenure of the
Director of Enforcement in the
Enforcement Directorate since
October 1, 2020 including
2
reasons recorded in writing.
Being dissatisfied with the denial of the information on points 3 & 5, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.12.2021. FAA's order, dated 09.02.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present along with Amrita Johri through intra-video conference. Respondent: Sandeep Gahlot, US & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant stated that she was shocked to note the invocation of Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act by the CPIO for points 3 & 5 of the RTI Application despite the fact that at the time the instant RTI application was filed (i.e on 24/11/2021), the matter regarding the extension of tenure of the Director of Enforcement Directorate was complete and over as it was notified vide Office Order, dated 17.11.2021 issued by the Government. She further submitted that at this stage, as the CPIO has relied on another argument for denial stating that the information is personal in nature and has relied upon the ratio laid down in the Apex Court judgment of Girish R Deshpande case, the fact remains that the averred judgment provides for a case-to-case determination of relief by assessing the aspect of larger public interest. Adding that the information sought for in the RTI Application clearly caters to the public at large as transparency in appointments to important posts of probe agencies and oversight bodies is key to check arbitrariness in the process and therefore, there is larger public interest in disclosure of records related to shortlisting, selection of persons and decisions regarding extensions of tenure. In fact, the Supreme Court in various judgments has underlined the need for transparency and disclosure of deliberations in appointments to crucial posts including the CVC and information commissions.
Lastly, the Appellant desired to place on record a reply received with respect to a similar request for information filed with DoPT in Sept, 2022 relating to the appointment of CVC, against which, DoPT provided the complete information. Therefore, urging that the same yardstick should ideally apply to the Respondent CPIO with respect to disclosing information related to the appointment/extension of tenure of the Director, ED.
3The CPIO submitted that since no larger public interest subsists in the disclosure of the said information, the reliance placed on the Girish R Deshpande judgment may be duly considered by the bench. He further submitted that as on date, the matter of granting extension to the Director, ED is sub judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and hearing in one of the related Miscellaneous Application (MA) was also listed for today.
The Appellant interjected to state that the aspect raised in the instant case is not a subject matter that is sub judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that concededly, the invocation of Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act by the CPIO in their original reply was not appropriate as there appears to have been no clarity or reason behind invoking the said exemption, while the FAA has also not bothered to determine or stipulate the justification for the invocation of Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act by the CPIO. For the said reason, the Commission records severe admonition for the sheer ignorance and laxity displayed by Rajinder Kumar, US (Ad.I) & then CPIO and Arvind Saran, Director (HQ) & then FAA in the instant matter. Copy of this order shall be served upon the then CPIO & FAA through the present CPIO & FAA, respectively.
Now, at this stage, the Commission considers the fact that the present CPIO did not endorse the reply of the then CPIO, rather has applied his mind to submit that the information sought for is personal in nature and therefore qualifies to be exempted as per the Girish R Deshpande ratio. As a matter of fact, the information sought for is the service matter of a third party and stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 4 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"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..."
Further, on the aspect of larger public interest, the Commission places reliance on a catena of judgments of the superior Courts on the import of "public interest" as under:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.9052 OF 2012] observed as under:
"23. The expression 'public interest' has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression 'public interest' must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression 'public interest', like 'public purpose', is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs. [State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (AIR 1952 SC 252)]. It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recommendation and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)]. Emphasis Supplied "24. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to 5 circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision. Certain matters, particularly in relation to appointment, are required to be dealt with great confidentiality."
".... Similarly, there may be cases where the disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. All these protections have to be given their due implementation as they spring from statutory exemptions. It is not a decision simpliciter between private interest and public interest. It is a matter where a constitutional protection is available to a person with regard to the right to privacy. Thus, the public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance factor between right to privacy and right to information with the purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be served in the larger public interest, particularly when both these rights emerge from the constitutional values under the Constitution of India." Emphasis Supplied Similarly, in another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. P. Gupta v President of India, [AIR 1982 SC 149], with reference to 'public interest' it has been maintained that:
"Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, 'diffused' rights and interests vindicate public interest... [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected." Emphasis Supplied And, in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others [Appeal (Civil) 4937-4940 of 1998], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"the interest of general public (public interest) is of a wide importance covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution [i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy]". Emphasis Supplied Since the material on record does not ascribe larger public interest in the disclosure of the information related to the averred third party in any of the above referred contexts, the Commission finds no reason to order for relief in the matter under the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.6
Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of further action in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7