Central Information Commission
Shri Amit Bhargava vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 19 January, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00779
Dated, the 19th January, 2009
Appellant : Shri Amit Bhargava
Respondents : Life Insurance Corporation of India
This matter came up for hearing on 17.12.2008 in response to Commission's hearing notice dated 11.11.2008. Appellant was absent, while the respondents were present through Shri Niraj Agarwal, RM (CRM), Shri Ajit Kukreja, A.A.O. and Shri Gagan Dua, A.A.O.
2. Appellant had filed his petition dated 31.12.2007 before the CPIO, Shri N.P. Chawla, Regional Manager (Marketing). His query read as follows:-
3. CPIO, through his communication dated 02.02.2008, declined to disclose information citing exemption in Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. When taken in first-appeal before the Appellate Authority, Shri Ashok Shah, Zonal Manager, the CPIO's decision was upheld. Appellate Authority additionally cited Section 8(1)(h) to decline the requested information.
4. Appellant, in his second-appeal, has urged that given the type of query which he had made, both Section 8(1)(h) and Section 8(1)(g) were not attracted, as it was neither related to law enforcement, nor was it about an ongoing investigation. It was a straight-forward matter of sexual harassment of appellant's wife, Mrs.Nidhi Bhargava (Assistant) in the public authority's branch at Udaipur, by one Mr.Subhash Bairathi, Branch Manager. The third-party, Mrs.Nidhi Bhargava's complaint was apparently enquired into by a committee chaired by Mrs.Neelima Khaitan, who furnished the report of enquiry to the competent authority of the public authority. Appellant, who is the husband of the third-party, wishes to access the Report prepared by Smt.Neelima Khaitan.
Page 1 of 25. Respondents stated that the matter which the appellant wishes to access no-doubt pertained to his wife, but the matter was a sensitive one about sexual harassment of an employee of the public authority. It would be inappropriate to give such information (contained in the Report made on the complaint of the appellant's wife by the Enquiry Committee) even to the employee's husband ⎯ the present appellant ⎯ because if the relationship between the husband and wife were strained, it was probable that the contents of the Report / information could be used against the victim's interest, who being a woman, would doubtless suffer the most.
6. It was the respondents' further submission that even though the third- party, Mrs.Nidhi Bhargava was acknowledgedly the wife of the present appellant, she was still a third-party and nothing related to her could be disclosed without her specific consent, especially when the information solicited related to sexual harassment which the third-party might be averse to being publicized.
7. Considering the totality of this matter, it is only appropriate that the third-party, Mrs.Nidhi Bhargava is given adequate opportunity to state before the Appellate Authority whether or not she was willing to the disclosure of the requested information to the appellant.
8. Apart from the above, there are two other third-parties in this matter, i.e. the author of the Report, Mrs.Neelima Khaitan and the officer charged with sexual harassment, Mr.Subhash Bairathi. It would be necessary to consult these two officers as well before a decision could be taken about the disclosure liability of this information.
9. Accordingly, it is directed that the matter be remitted back to the Appellate Authority to consult the third-parties, i.e. Mrs.Nidhi Bhargava, the author of the Report, Mrs.Neelima Khaitan and Mr.Subhash Bairathi under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act and to take a decision on the basis of those submissions about whether the information could be authorized to be disclosed.
10. This may be done within four weeks of the receipt of this order.
11. Appeal accordingly disposed of.
12. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Page 2 of 2