Central Information Commission
Mr. Vikash Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 24 April, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room no. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi - 110066
Tel: +91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000315/2913
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000315
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Vikash Kumar,
Flat No. 791, Sector-13, Pocket-B,
Dwarka-II, New Delhi-110075.
Respondent : Dy. Secretary (Environment) & PIO,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Department of Environment, 6th Level, C-Wing, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 26/12/2008 APIO : 19/01/2009 First Appeal filed on : 23/01/2009 First Appellate Authority order : 16/02/2009 Second Appeal filed on : 26/02/2009 Particular of required information :-
1. Is there any person by the name of Dr. / Ms Chetna Harjai / Chetna Anand in this office?
2. How much salary she is drawing per month.
3. How much salary she has drawn for the month of April -08, May-08, Jun- 08, July-08, August-08, Sept.-08, Oct.-08 and Nov-08.
4. In which department she is working along with her date of joining, her designation and her reporting manager with his / her designation.
5. Also inform on which date she has not reported for work i.e. she was either on leave/absent/not present during April 08 to Dec. 08.
The PIO replied.
Regarding information asked by you in r/o Dr. Chetana Harjai, Scientist you are hereby informed that the same is -Exempted from disclosure under Sub- Secton 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
First Appellate Authority Ordered:
"The information asked by the appellant relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and hence the undersigned is satisfied with the reply regarding denial of the information, given by the SPIO, Environment Department, GNCT of Delhi."
Relevant facts emerging during hearing on 23 April 2009:
The following were present.
Appellant: Mr. Vikash Kumar Respondent: Ms. Sushma Jerath PIO Third party: Dr. Chetna Harjai The third party Dr. Chetna Harjai states that disclosing the information would be an intrusion on her privacy which falls under Section 8 (1) (j). She also claims that there are disputes pending with the appellant.
The appellant contends that Dr. Chetna Harjai has been drawing salary from different Public authorities by showing her presence at the same time in more than one location, hence there is a Public interest in disclosing the information. The Commission pointed out that queries 1 and 2 should actually be part of the Suo Moto declaration of the Public authority.
The third party was asked if she wanted to give written submissions for her objection to disclosing the information. Dr. Chetna Harjai says she has given a letter and does not wish to make any further written submissions.
The Commission reserved its order.
Decision announced on 24 April 2009:
The Commission has looked at the submissions of the appellant, the PIO and the third party. The third party Dr. Chetna Harjai has also sent a note today stating that the appellant is her husband and a case of dowry harassment and domestic violence is pending against him. She has also made other allegations against the appellant. The Commission would like to state that no cognizance is being taken in arriving at the decision of the charges leveled by the appellant or the third party. The Commission recognizes that its job is to decide matters as per the RTI act. Section 6 (2) of the Act categorically states: "An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him." Thus no Public authority or Commission has any authority to look at the antecedents or motives of an applicant.
This Commission is conscious of the fact that it has been established under the RTI Act 2005 and being an adjudicating body under the Act, it cannot take upon itself the role of the legislature and import new exemptions hitherto not provided. The Commission cannot of its own impose exemptions and substitute their own views for those of Parliament. The Act leaves no such liberty with the adjudicating authorities to read law beyond what it is stated explicitly. There is absolutely no ambiguity in the Act and tinkering with it in the name of larger public interest is beyond the scope of the adjudicating authorities. Creating new exemptions by the adjudicating authorities will go against the spirit of the Act. The Commission can therefore allow denial of information only based on the exemptions listed under Section 8 (1) of the act. The third party and the PIO have 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 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 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.
Certain human rights such as liberty, freedom of expression or right to life are universal and therefore would apply uniformly in all Countries uniformly. However, the concept of 'privacy' is a cultural notion, related to the society and different societies' would look at these differently. India has not codified this right so far, hence in balancing the Right to Information of Citizens and the individual's Right to Privacy the Citizen's Right to Information would be given greater weightage.
Therefore we can accept that disclosure of information which is routinely collected by the Public authority and routinely provided by individuals, would not be an invasion on the privacy of an individual and 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.
Thus the information sought by the appellant in this case is not covered by the exemption of Section 8 (1) (j), and therefore the information would have to be provided.
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the information to the appellant free of cost before 5 May 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 24 April 2009 (In any case correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)