Central Information Commission
Mr.Gyanender Kumar Shukla vs Allahabad Bank on 10 February, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2011/001037/17290
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2011/001037
Complainant : Mr. Gyanender Kumar Shukla
Bagha Katra, Auraiya,
Uttar Pradesh
Respondent : Mr. Chitranjan Sahay
Public Information Officer & AGM(LAW) Allahabad Bank Head Office, 2. N. S. Road, Kolkata - 700001.
RTI application filed on : 18/05/2011 PIO replied : not mentioned. First Appeal filed on : 04/07/2011 Complaint filed on : 02/09/2011 Complaint notice issued on : 09/09/2011 Information Sought:
Provide the information regarding the officers in Grammen bank Triveni , Garmmen bank , Head office Urai and Allahabad UP grammen bank Head office , Banda .
• Names, salary, educational qualifications, the promotional letters, assets and liabilities, traveling allowance of last three years. Provide the Certified copies of all the documents.
Grounds for Complaint:
Non-receipt of information from the PIO.
Submission received from the PIO:
CPIO's letter to CIC dated 12/10/2011 -
This has reference to your letter dated 09/09/2011 on the captioned subject, received by us on 21/09/2011. In this connection, we have to submit as under -
1. Shri Gyanendra Kumar Shukla, had filed his First Appeal in this matter alleging non- receipt of reply for his RTI application dated 19/05/2011. However1 no copy of such RTI application was available in our records. No copy of RTI application was also found enclosed with the appeal, although the Complainant had mentioned about an enclosure.
2. The First Appellate Authority, wrote to the Complainant vide his letter Pra.Kaa/Aar.tee./Aaee/158 of 19/08/2011, requesting him to provide details of the information that is actually being sought, so that it may be provided to him. (copy of the letter is enclosed in one page of A-4 Size)
3. However, Shri Gyanendra Kumar Shukla, complained to the Honble Commission on 02/09/2011.
)/ 4. We received a copy of the RTI application, only through the captioned letter of the Hon'ble Commission & have promptly disposed it of. Information has already been 4.47/1 provided to the complainant, as per the provisions of the Act, vide our letter no. Pra./Kaa./Aar.Tee.Aaee/1343 of 01/10/2011, sent through speed post.
5. As desired, a copy of the reply is also enclosed in two pages of A-4 Size.
Page 1 of 4Sir, in this case, no such RTI application was available in our records & hence, no information could be provided. The first appellate authority also, took a note of it & requested the Complainant to provide a copy of his RTI application. Now, upon receipt of the same, reply has been provided by speed post. After receipt of the information, the right to appeal will still be available. Sir, we make every endeavor for prompt disposal of RTI applications. In this case, too, a reply was provided, immediately when a copy of the RTI application was made available. In view of the above, it is prayed that the matter may kindly be put to rest. CPIO' reply dated 01/10/2011:
• The information regarding all the information sought is available on the website. Photocopies enclosed.
• The TA bills of the sought period are not available. Grameen bank is separate public authority so the information can be taken from that bank.
• The Central vigilance commission ordered that all the bank officials have to disclose the information regarding their liabilities and assets .
• CVC ordered - " The above requirement of the annual submission of assets and: liabilities statement is an important preventive vigilance initiative and provides an opportunity for the controlling authorities in banks to monitor instances . Where officers are found in possession of assets disproportionate to their known sources of income or where officers have incurred liabilities which may appear to be onerous to meet within the known sources of income. While banks need to maintain strict secrecy regarding the information furnished by the officers in their statements, which are submitted in sealed cover, these statements are also required to be scrutinized by the Competent Authority to whom these are submitted." The bank does not receive the above mentioned information because it comes under fiduciary relationship. So the information comes under the section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act .
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Complainant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Chitranjan Sahay, Public Information Officer & AGM(LAW) on video conference from NIC-Kolkata Studio;
The Respondent states that he has given all the information except the assets of the employees and the details of the TA Bills. The PIO states that the TA Bills are with the Allahabad UP Gramin Bank. The Commission directs the PIO to transfer the RTI application to the PIO of Allahabad UP Gramin Bank before 20 February 2012. The PIO of Allahabad UP Gramin Bank should provide the information to the Complainant within 30 days of receiving the application.
As regards the assets of the employees the PIO has not provided the information claiming exemption under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
The Commission has already decided in CIC/AT/A/2008/01262/SG/2109 dated 27/02/2009 and CIC/SG/A/2009/001436/4247 on 23 July 2009 that the assets of public servants would have to be disclosed when a citizen uses the Right to Information.
The Commission can allow denial of information only based on the exemptions listed under Section 8 (1) of the act. The PIO has claimed that the information should not be disclosed since it is exempted from disclosure 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 Page 2 of 4 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.). 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 Complainant 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 the instant case.
Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure 'information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;' The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of that relationship. In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, financial analyst or trustee. Another important characteristic of such a relationship is that the information must be given by the holder of information who must have a choice,- as when a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, a customer chooses a particular bank, or a patient goes to particular doctor. An equally important characteristic for the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the information for using it for the benefit of the one who is providing the information. All relationships usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. Information provided in discharge of a statutory requirement, or to obtain a job, or to get a license, cannot be considered to have been given in a fiduciary relationship. Declaration of assets given by Public Servants are given in pursuance of the requirements of the Rules and Laws of the Authority. The Employee has no choice nor does he gives this information for the benefit of himself. Hence the claim for exemption under Section 8(1)(e) is not upheld.
Page 3 of 4Decision:
The complaint is allowed.
The PIO directed to provide the information about assets to the Complainant before 05 March 2012.
The PIO is also directed to transfer the RTI application to the Allahabad UP Gramin Bank before 20 Ferrari 2012 alongwith a copy of this order.
The PIO of Allahabad UP Gramin Bank is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Complainant within 30 days of receiving the RTI application. 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 10 February 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG) Copy through Mr. Chitranjan Sahay , PIO & AGM(LAW) to:
1- Allahabad UP Gramin Bank.
Page 4 of 4