Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Shri.Chetan Kothari vs Bhabha Atomic Research Centre on 6 April, 2011

                       Central Information Commission, New Delhi
                             File No.CIC/SM/A/2010/001086
                  Right to Information Act­2005­Under Section  (19)




Date of hearing                       :                                      6 April 2011


Date of decision                      :                                      6 April 2011



Name of the Appellant                 :    Shri Chetan Kothari
                                           52, Oceanic Apartment,
                                           Dr. Rajabali Patel Lane,
                                           B Desai Road, Mumbai.


Name of the Public Authority          :    CPIO, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre,
                                           Central Complex, 3rd Floor, BARC,
                                           Trombay, Mumbai.



        The Appellant was present in person.

        On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Goverdhan Rao was present.

Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra

2. Both the parties were present in the Mumbai studio of the NIC during the  hearing. We heard their submissions.

3. The   Appellant   had   requested   for   some   information   regarding   the  employees of the BARC who had committed suicide during the past 15 years.  While   the   CPIO   had   provided   the   number  of   such   employees,   he   had   not  CIC/SM/A/2010/001086 disclosed either their names or any further details treating such information as  personal information. The Appellate Authority had also endorsed the decision of  the CPIO.

4. We think that the CPIO was right in not disclosing the names of those  employees who had committed suicide. The information regarding the manner  of   death   of   an   individual   person   is   ordinarily   in   the   nature   of   personal  information. The family members of the deceased have the right to live a life of  dignity. Disclosure of information regarding the suicide of a family member and  the consequent discussion in the public about such death has the potential to  cause severe invasion of the privacy of the family, let alone causing disrespect  to the dead. Therefore, we find nothing wrong in the decision of the CPIO in not  disclosing the information.

5. The Appellant pointed out that the Appellate Authority had decided his  appeal without giving him an opportunity of hearing. We think the Appellate  Authority   should   invariably   give   an   opportunity   of   hearing   to   the   Appellant  before issuing his orders.

6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. CIC/SM/A/2010/001086 (Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy.  Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against  application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this  Commission.

(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2010/001086