Central Information Commission
Siddharth Joshi vs Indian Institute Of Management (Iim), ... on 16 August, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/IIMAD/A/2017/602379-BJ+
CIC/IIMAD/A/2017/606089-BJ+
CIC/IIMAD/A/2017/608417-BJ+
CIC/IIMAD/A/2017/608438-BJ
Mr. Siddharth Joshi,
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Institute of Management, Vastrapur,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380015
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10.08.2018
Date of Decision : 16.08.2018
ORDER
RTI-1: CIC/IIMAD/A/2017/602379-BJ Date of RTI application 25.02.2017 CPIO's response 08.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 10.04.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 03.05.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 4 points regarding total number of permanent faculty in their faculty body, minimum teaching/lecture requirements at the institutions for permanent faculty in terms of hours per year or credit per year, details of incentive structure for teaching beyond the minimum requirement, and the total amount given as incentives for teaching beyond minimum requirements during the period 2013-14 to 2015-16.Page 1 of 7
The CPIO vide letter dated 08.03.2017 provided a point-wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 03.05.2017 concurred with the CPIO's response.
RTI-2: CIC/IIMAD/A/2017/606089-BJ Date of RTI application 27.07.2017 CPIO's response Not on record Date of the First Appeal 26.08.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 29.09.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the details of cumulative payments received by each individual permanent faculty member at their institute for the financial year 2016-17, data in the format mentioned in the RTI for each one of the permanent faculty members etc. Dissatisfied due to non receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 29.09.2017 concurred with the CPIO's response and further stated that they did not maintain the desired information in the format.
RTI-3: CIC/IIMAD/A/2017/608417-BJ Date of RTI application 28.08.2017 CPIO's response 27.09.2017 Date of the First Appeal 08.10.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 14.11.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information relating to the gross annual payments received by each individual permanent faculty member at the institute in the format for each of the permanent faculty members for the year 2016-17.
The CPIO vide letter dated 27.09.2017 denied the disclosure of information stating that the sought information was strategic in nature and the disclosure would harm the business of the institute. Dissatisfied by the response the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 14.11.2017 while concurring with the CPIO's response stated that the information sought could not be provided u/s 2 (f), 7(9) and 11 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Page 2 of 7
RTI-4: CIC/IIMAD/A/2017/608438-BJ
Date of RTI application 05.09.2017
CPIO's response 04.10.2017
Date of the First Appeal 09.10.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 06.11.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the Gross Annual Amount paid to Prof. Ashish Nanda, Director of IIM Ahmedabad with relevant breakup (based on 6th pay commission salary, HRA, Incentives, any other head).
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 04.10.2017 stated that Prof. Ashish Nanda had been on apex scale of basic Rs. 80,000/- and had been paid usual allowances as applicable to Director, IIMA. Dissatisfied with the CPIOs response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 06.11.2017 concurred with the CPIO's response.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Siddharth Joshi through VC;
Respondent: Mr. K. V. Ramchandran, PIO and Mr. S. N. Rao, Head (HR) FAA's representative through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that he remained dissatisfied with the information furnished by the CPIO. During the hearing a specific reference was made to point no. 04 of the RTI application in Appeal No. CIC/IIMAD/A/2017/602379 to submit that the total incentive for teaching beyond the minimum requirement during the years 2013-2014 to 2015-2016 was not provided to him. It was also submitted that the detailed breakup of the salary of Prof. Ashish Nanda was also not disclosed. In its reply, the Respondent stated that subsequent to providing the response to the Appellant, they had followed up with their accounts department with regard to the aforementioned point no. 04 and were now willing to share the information. As regards the information regarding incentives and other salary details of third party employees, it was stated that the same was exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, determination of cumulative payments received by each permanent faculty member of the Institute would cause disproportionate diversion of meagre resources hence a suitable reply was provided to the Appellant. On being queried regarding the larger public interest involved in the matter, no satisfactory response was offered by the Appellant.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 30.07.2018 wherein while praying to adjourn the hearing to any date after 16.08.2018, stated that the FAA (Cdr. Manoj Bhatt) was out of country and would be back on 14.08.2018. The Dy. Registrar in the meanwhile had drawn the attention of the Respondent vide his email dated 02.08.2018 to point-07 of the notice of hearing wherein it was stated that no adjournment / review shall be permitted.Page 3 of 7
The Commission was in receipt of another Written Submission from the Respondent dated 01.08.2018, wherein it was stated that the Appellant had filed 74 RTI applications and 25 First Appeals during the last three years seeking voluminous information. In the absence of specific requests, it was difficult for the Institute to respond such queries. Explaining that the Appellant was an FPM Student at Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, it was stated that he was publishing information related to IIM Ahmedabad in certain publications. On a number of occasions, he was requested to visit their institute to see the records but he did not turn up.
Moreover, in most of the cases, there was no larger public interest. While referring to the decision of the Chief Information Commissioner of Gujarat in Appeal No. 133/2006-07 dated 01.09.2016, it was stated that the applicant should specify specific subject, specific time period, specific details while requesting for the information under the RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore, a reference was also made to the decision of the Chief Information Commissioner Gujarat in SCA No. 16073/2007 dated 16.08.2007, decision of the Central Information Commission in CIC/OK/C/2007/00362 and 367 dated 05.06.2008, CIC/OK/A/2006/00605 dated 30.04.2007 and Judgement No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001765 dated 24.04.2012 to submit that the applicant was filing RTI applications in order to disturb the working of the Public Authority. Moreover, a specific submission was made by the Respondent in respect of each of the above cases under consideration as stipulated below:
Appeal No.: - CIC/IIMAD/A/2017/606089 wherein it was submitted that the information was already provided to the Appellant vide their reply dated 22.08.2017. The Appellant had sought the information in a specific format and the institute was not maintaining the details in the format mentioned by him. Further, it was submitted that the CPIO was not required to create the data in the format prescribed by the Appellant. Furthermore, the decision of the Chief Information Commissioner of Gujarat was referred in Judgment No. A-02336/11-12 dated 29.01.2013 to substantiate his claim.
Appeal No.: -CIC/IIMAD/A/2017/608417-BJ wherein a reference was made to the decision of the Chief Information Commissioner, Gujarat in Judgement No. A-02336/11-12 dated 29.01.2013.
Appeal No CIC/IIMAD/A/2017/608438-BJ, wherein it was stated that the CPIO had already replied vide letter dated 04.10.2017.
The Commission referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
"13......The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest Page 4 of 7 justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 dated 31.08.2017 had held as under:
"5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc
11) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of the Act.
12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794, 5 it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature;
secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 while explaining the term "Public Interest" held:
"22. 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 recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]."Page 5 of 7
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State of West Bengal (decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the following texts for defining the meaning of "public interest', which is stated as under:
"Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus:
"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :
Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."
In Mardia Chemical Limited v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while considering the validity of SARFAESI Act and recovery of non-performing assets by banks and financial institutions in India, recognised the significance of Public Interest and had held as under :
".............Public interest has always been considered to be above the private interest. Interest of an individual may, to some extent, be affected but it cannot have the potential of taking over the public interest having an impact in the socio-economic drive of the country..........."
The Commission also took note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 wherein it was held as under:
"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."Page 6 of 7
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781 dated 02.09.2011 had held as under:
"26. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources"
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the aforesaid judgments, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. The Commission however advised the Respondent to endorse a copy of their written submission to the Appellant, as well.
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 16.08.2018
Copy to:
1- The Director, Indian Institute of Management, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380015 Page 7 of 7