Central Information Commission
Dr. Anil Shukla vs National Council For Teacher Education on 12 November, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/002343/5489
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002343
Appellant : Dr. Anil Shukla,
275, RPS Quarters,
Shiekhsarai, Phase I,
New Delhi
Respondent : Mr. Krishna Prasad
Public Information Officer & US
National Council for Teacher
Education, Wing II, Hans Bhawan,
1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi-110002
RTI application filed on : 10/06/2009
PIO replied : 07/10/2009
First Appeal filed on : 06/08/2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned
Second Appeal Received on : 17/09/2009
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 12/10/2009
Hearing Held on : 12/11/2009
Information sought:
A. Appellant sought information in the following format with the details of movable property and non-moveable property of the all working staff in National Council for Teacher Education since 1995 to 30 May 2009.1 2 3 4 5 6
Name Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of
and Joining relieving Annual annual return informing
Design return of of Movable about the
ation Non- property from movable
movable joining to and non-
property relieving movable
from property to
joining concerned
to department.
relieving
B. Photocopy of the all document relating above staff about their return of movable and
non-movable property of each year and the details of same before and later. PIO's Reply:
A. Information was provided by the PIO for the last 3 years and whose records are easily available had been complied by him and given. PIO mentioned that compiling such mammoth information from different files of the head quarters as well as its Regional offices for nearly 14 years would throw out of gear, the functioning of the NCTE. PIO stated that Appellant could specify the names of few officers/officials B. The copies of Annual Property Return, whether movable or immovable, sought by the Appellant in respect of each and every officer/officials NCTE is not permitted in terms os Section 8(1) (J) of the RTI Act, 2005, as these are personal information.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Desired information in point no. 4, 5 and 6 not provided.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
Not enclosed.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
First Appeal not heard. Misleading and incomplete information provided.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Dr. Anil Shukla;
Respondent: Mr. Krishna Prasad, Public Information Officer & US;
The PIO has denied the information about the assets of public servant which are disclosed to the Public Authority on the grounds that this is covered under Section 8(1)(j). The Commission has earlier ruled on this in decision number CIC/SG/A/2009/002217/5280 dated 29 October 2009. We are however giving the reasoning which was given earlier as, "The Commission can allow denial of information only based on the exemptions listed under Section 8 (1) of the 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 we could state that Section 8 (1)
(j) cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organisations or corporates.).
2. 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. The information sought in this case by the appellant has certainly been obtained in the pursuit of 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 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.
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 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. Any other exceptions would have to be specifically justified. Besides the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that even people who aspire to be public servants by getting elected have to declare their property details. If people who aspire to be public servants must declare their property details it is only logical that the details of assets of those who are public servants must be considered to be disclosable. Hence the exemption under Section 8(1) (j) cannot be applied in such a case."
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information to the Appellant before 30 December 2009.
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 12 November 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj