Central Information Commission
Mukesh Verma vs Prasar Bharati Secretariat on 28 March, 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/PBSEC/A/2022/123340
Mukesh Verma अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Dy. Director Gen. Prasar
Bharti, RTI Cell, Aakashvani
Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New
Delhi-110001. ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23/03/2023
Date of Decision : 23/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15/11/2021
CPIO replied on : 16/12/2021
First appeal filed on : 05/01/2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 11/02/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10/05/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.11.2021 seeking the following information:1
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 16.12.2021 stating as under:
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.01.2022. FAA's order, dated 11.02.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO, held as under:2
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 through audio conference.
Respondent: A P Singh, DDG & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that the denial of the information is not appropriate as the information sought for relates to public functionaries.
The CPIO reiterated the denial of the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the denial of the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is as per the provisions of the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the said exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is reproduced as under:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen:
(j) 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:.."
In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is further drawn towards a 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 3 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 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..."
Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of relief to be ordered in the matter in the absence of any larger public interest pertinent from the disclosure of the information sought for by the Appellant.
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 / 4