Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Ramesh P vs Supreme Court Of India on 25 January, 2021

                               के ीयसूचनाआयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                            बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
                      Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2018/800091

Shri Ramesh P                                                ... अपीलकता/Appellant
Through: Sh. Venkatesh
                                  VERSUS/बनाम


PIO, Addl. Registrar, Supreme Court India,
Tilak Marg, Mandi House New Delhi- 110201              ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Sh. Bharat Singh - Advocate;
Sh Ajay Aggarwal

Date of Hearing                      :    21.01.2021
Date of Decision                     :    25.01.2021
Chief Information Commissioner       :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on              :   17.08.2018
PIO replied on                        :   15.09.2018
First Appeal filed on                 :   30.09.2018
First Appellate Order on              :   26.10.2018
2ndAppeal/complaint received on       :   30.11.2018

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed RTI application dated 17.08.2018 seeking information on following 5 points:

1. Copy of the document containing the latest monthly remuneration received by each of your officers and employees, as mandated to be prepared, published and updated under section 4(1)(b)(x) of the RTI act 2005.(Details such as name, designation and gross salary of all the employees of your organization as well as the Honourable Supreme Court Justices including the Chief Justice of India).

2. Copy of report of the audit of Supreme Court of India's proactive disclosure conducted by a third party for the last two years as mandated under paragraph 4.4 of DOPT OM No.1/6/2011-IR dated 15th April,2013 (Enclosed).

3. Copy of the list of emails IDs allotted/given to the employees as well as the Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court of India under the official mail ID system of "@ nic.in". (Including the CPIO).

4. What are the steps taken in regard to adding/enlisting the Supreme Court of India under RTI ONLINE website? Kindly provide copy of any document detailing the steps taken and decisions regarding the same.

5. Copy of any Minutes of meeting or communication between the administrative or judicial employee of the Supreme Court of India and DOPT regarding enlisting SCI under the RTI ONLINE website of Department of Personnel & Training, the nodal department for RTI implementation and monitoring.

The PIO, Supreme Court India, New Delhi vide letter dated 15.09.2018 furnished a point wise information to the Appellant.

Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.09.2018. The FAA vide order dated 26.10.2018 observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of the PIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, video hearing has been scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are present for hearing through video conference and Appellant is represented by Sh. Venkatesh who contended that replies provided by the Respondent were inadequate and deficient. He has reiterated contents of the Second Appeal stating that while information about payroll of Supreme Court employees had been sought, the reply provided entails the pay scale of the employees. Likewise, query about the official email IDs allotted/given to the employees as well as the Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court of India had been addressed by giving the general official email id of the Supreme Court. Respondent in their rebuttal stated that information as available on record and as permissible under the RTI Act had been provided to the Appellant, in response to his queries. The Respondent further placed reliance on a decision dated 27.03.2018 passed by the Commission wherein information about salary details of Appellant's husband were denied to her holding that it is purely personal detail pertaining to the concerned employee, citing decision of the Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank vs. C S Shyam and Girish Ramchandra Deshpande. In so as far as individual email addresses of each employee is concerned, the Respondent clarified that the official email id for communication with the Respondent public authority is [email protected], which has been made available to the Appellant. Individual email ids are not allotted/given to the employees of Supreme Court, as sought by the Appellant and hence could not be provided to him.

Decision Upon hearing the averments of both parties and perusal of records of the case, the Commission notes that apart from the above mentioned two decisions of the Supreme Court cited by the Respondent, the term personal information has been further amplified in the Apex Court's decision in the case of Cen. Pub. Information Officer, SC vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal dated 13 November, 2019 whereby it was held as under:

"....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."

In so far as the email ids of each employee of Supreme Court is concerned, information as available on record has been duly provided to the Appellant. It has further been pointed out by the Respondent during the course of hearing that after 2018, Supreme Court is covered under the Transparency Audit carried out by the Central Information Commission and detailed information in this regard is available already on the CIC website.

After hearing the detailed averments of the parties and examination of the facts of the case, the Commission finds that the reply given by the Respondent is in consonance with the provisions of this Act and there is no infirmity therein. Hence no interference is required in this case.

The appeal is disposed off.

Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. चटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3