Central Information Commission
Mrp M Singh vs High Court on 25 July, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110067
Tel : +91-11-26186535
Appeal No. CIC/VS/A/2015/003402
Appellant: Mrs. P.M. Singh,
R/o Tower No.34 Flat No.703,
Commonwealth Games Village,
Nr. Akshardham Temple,
Delhi 110092.
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer,
Dy. Registrar,
Delhi High Court,
New Delhi.
Date of Hearing: 25.07.2016
Dated of Decision: 25.07.2016
ORDER
Facts:
1. The appellant filed RTI application dated 26.03.2015 seeking copy of the complaint, final decision and details of consideration process of the complaint in the cases namely (i) CBI vs. P.M. Singh (ii) CBI vs. N.K. Grover and (iii) CBI vs. "Ram Bhaj Bansal and another".
2. The CPIO responded on 27.04.2015. The appellant filed first appeal dated 14.5.2015 before the first appellate authority. The FAA responded on 11.6.2014. The appellant filed a second appeal dated 31.7.2015 before the Commission requesting for a copy of reasoned order dated 30.01.2014 passed by the Committee of Inspecting Judges.
Hearing:
3. Both the parties participated in the hearing personally. The appellant was represented through her Counsel.
4. The appellant referred to her RTI application dated 26.3.2015 and stated that the respondent has not provided the copy of complaint under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act.
5. During the hearing, the appellant cited Supreme Court order R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India (Mukhopadhaya . J) which reads as follows:
"16. In centre of Earth Science Studies v. Anson Sebastian the Kerala High Court considered the question whether the information sought relates to personal information of other employees, the disclosure of which is prohibited under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
In that case the Kerala High Court noticed that the information sought for by the first respondent pertains to copies of documents furnished in a domestic enquiry against one of the employees of the appellant Organization. Particulars of confidential reports maintained in respect of coemployees in the abovesaid case (all of whom were scientists) were sought from the appellant Orgnisation. The Division Bench of Kerala High Court after noticing the relevant provisions of the RTI Act held that documents produced in a domestic enquiry cannot be treated as documents relating to personal information of a person, disclosure of which will cause unwarranted invasions of privacy of such person. The Court further held that the confidential reports of the employees maintained by the employer cannot be treated as records pertaining to personal information of an employee and publication of the same is not prohibited under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
19. Recently similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commr. That was a case in which the Central Information Commissioner denied the information pertaining to the service career of the third party to the said case and also denied the details relating to assets, liabilities, movable and immovable properties of the third party on the ground that the information sought for was qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. In that case this Court also considered the question whether the orders of censure/punishment, etc. are personal information and the performance of an employee/officer in an organisation, commonly known as annual confidential report can be disclosed or not.
20. This Court after hearing the parties and noticing the provisions of the RTI Act held:
(Girish Ramchandra Deshpande case) the details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are 'personal information' which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.,"
6. The appellant stated that if the information is not provided then there will be grave miscarriage of justice.
7. The appellant further stated that the information sought does not relate to the third party information and will not attract the provisions of exemptions under the RTI Act, 2005.
8. The respondent stated that the appellant is seeking copy of complaint made against the Judicial officer against whom allegation of corruption charges were made. The respondent said that the corruption charges against the Judicial Officer have not been proved. The respondent further stated that the complaint against the judicial officer has been considered and ordered to be filed i.e. closed on 30.1.2014. The respondent said that the complaint pertained to third party, therefore they denied the same to the appellant under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. The respondent stated that outcome of the complaint has been provided to the appellant.
9. The respondent further stated that the information on point Nos. 2 and 3 was already provided to the appellant.
10. The appellant stated that there is a larger public interest as the matter relates to a senior officer with more than 35 years of experience. This will impact civil service. Therefore, a copy of the complaint may be provided to her.
11. The respondent stated that there is no larger public interest in providing the information to the appellant, as the said complaint nowhere relates to the appellant.
12. The appellant stated that if a copy of the complaint is provided to her, this will help her in an appeal in the High Court against her conviction.
13. The respondent stated that if a copy of complaint is provided to the appellant, then every litigant may ask for copy of the complaint filed against the Judicial Officer. This will set a bad precedent. The respondent further stated that it is beyond the scope of the CPIO to provide such type of information.
Discussion/Observations
14. No larger public interest is involved. This is a third party information. Hence, the action/steps taken by the respondent in dealing with RTI application are satisfactory. Decision:
15. The Commission's intervention is not required in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Subhash Chander Sharma) Deputy Registrar