Central Information Commission
Ashok Kumar Yadav vs Staff Selection Commission on 4 October, 2022
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/SSCOM/A/2022/635217
Ashok Kumar Yadav ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Staff Selection Commission,
RTI Cell, Block No. 12,
Lodhi Road, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Colony, New Delhi-110003 .... ितवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03/10/2022
Date of Decision : 03/10/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19/04/2022
CPIO replied on : 12/05/2022
First appeal filed on : 13/05/2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 18/05/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28/06/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 19.04.2022 seeking the following information:
1. "Provide me CCTV footage of whole CBT Exam of below mentioned examination center Name of Exam Selection Post Phase VI 2018 Matriculation level Post Code NR12318 Exam Date 17.01.2019 Morning 10.00 AM to 11.00 AM CCTV footage 1 from 09.00 AM to 11.10 AM Exam Center SSR India Solutions KH No 354 1st Floor Jagat Complex 100 Feet Road Ghitorni New Delhi 110030
2. Provide me attendance Sheets of all candidate of mentioned exam.
3. Provide me Photographs of all candidates of mentioned exam."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 12.05.2022 stating as follows:-
"The information requested is pertains to the third-party information and cannot be given without the consent of that Third Party."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.05.2022. FAA's order dated 18.05.2022 upheld the reply of CPIO.
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 intra-video conference. Respondent: Vinesh Kumar, US & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant narrated the factual background of the information sought for in the RTI Application and urged that disclosure of the same is in the interest of his brother to prove his innocence against his debarment, since which time he has been battling depression.
The CPIO submitted that as per the provisions of the RTI Act he cannot disclose the details sought for by the Appellant as it entails encroaching on the privacy of a multitude of other candidates.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the CPIO has appropriately denied the information as being exempt under Section 8(1)(j) 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:2
(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 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, no scope of relief is pertinent in the matter. The Appellant is advised to pursue his grievance before the appropriate forum.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
सरोज पुनहािन)
Saroj Punhani (सरोज हािन
सूचना आयु&)
Information Commissioner (सू
3
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मा(णत स)या*पत ित)
(C.A. Joseph)
Dy. Registrar
011-26179548/ [email protected]
सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक /
4