Central Information Commission
Saravanan V vs Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. on 8 June, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली- 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/HALTD/A/2019/647804
In the matter of:
Saravanan V
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited,
Helicopter Division, Bengaluru - 560017
...Respondent
Date of Second Appeal filed by : 08/08/2019
the Third Party
Date of Hearing : 07/06/2021
Date of Decision : 07/06/2021
Details of RTI application and Order of FAA against which the third party has
filed the Second appeal:
Name of RTI applicant Smt. S. Then Mozhi
RTI application filed on : 14/02/2019
CPIO replied on : 28/03/2019
First appeal filed on : 22/04/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 21/06/2019
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Laxmikantha K.B., representiave of the appellant, heard over
phone
Respondent: Shri Shivanand G Mane, DGM (Security) & CPIO, heard over
phone.
Background of the case:
1. Smt. S. Then Mozhi, had filed RTI application dated 14/02/2019 with HAL, seeking the following information pertaining to Saravanan V, stating that he was her husband:
1i. Salary Certificate ii. Present residential address of Saravanan V. iii. Present Designation iv. Attendance and leave details of Saravanan V for the month of May-2018.
2. CPIO vide reply dated 28/03/2019, did not provide the information sought claiming exemption under Sec. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
3. However, the FAA, after considering the first appeal filed by Smt. Mozhi, passed his order dated 21st June, 2019, wherein he directed the CPIO to disclose the information sought by the RTI applicant.
3. Third party, Mr. Saravanan V, made a representation to the FAA vide his letter dated 11/07/2019 for review of the Order and not to disclose his personal information.
4. FAA vide its letter dated 6/08/2019 did not accede to the request of the third party and maintained his Order dated 21st June, 2019.
Grounds for Second Appeal The order issued by the FAA is illegal, contrary to law and facts and circumstances of the case. The FAA has failed to see that the marriage between Ms. Mozhi and Mr. Saravanan had been dissolved and she is no more the wife of Mr. Saravanan. The order issued by FAA may be declared as null and void.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The representative of the appellant submitted that the order of the FAA was not appropriate and contrary to the rule laid down by various Courts that husband and wife are third parties in relation to each other and therefore any information related to him should not have been disclosed to the wife of the appellant. He further informed that as of now, in compliance with the FAA's order, the information stands disclosed to Ms Thenmozhi.
The CPIO submitted that in compliance with the order of the FAA, complete information was provided to the ex-wife of the appellant, Ms. Mozhi. He further submitted that he and the First Appellate Authority has passed a considered order and had given sufficient reasons in the written submissions dated 05.06.2021 for arriving at the said conclusion after taking into consideration the various orders passed by the Commission and the fact that Ms Thenmozhi was the wife of the Appellant and that they have a daughter out of the wedlock. Further, it was noted that there is a maintenance and 2 divorce proceedings pending before various courts as informed by the ex-wife of the appellant and she has also referred to marriage photographs and the notice from Tirpur Court. In the written submissions, the CPIO has also stated that the Appellate Authority has also been guided by the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Kusum Sharma V/s Mahendra Kumar Sharma, wherein under similar situation of estrangement, the Court had concluded that the spouse has an overriding right of information, over the right of the public servant to his privacy.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records and considering the submissions of the parties, both oral and written, since the information as sought by the ex- wife of the appellant has been provided to her by the CPIO in compliance with the order of the FAA, the only limited issue is whether the disclosure was right and as per the provisions of the RTI Act or not. The appellant had challenged the order of the FAA while relying on various orders of the Supreme Court, High Courts and the Commission to substantiate the fact that the sought for information is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Per contra, the CPIO in his detailed written submissions dated 05.06.2021 had justified as to why the information was disclosed to the ex-wife of the appellant. He has also relied of several orders of the Commission to substantiate the fact that salary particulars of any employee are to be disclosed to any applicant and particularly in the cases of marital disputes, the same becomes more important when the wife claims maintenance from her husband.
The Commission concurs with the view taken by the appellant as the information sought for by the appellant in her RTI application is purely in the nature of personal information of a third party which is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. As a matter of fact, the parties have obtained a divorce decree from a competent Court and are also no longer in a marital relationship and are therefore purely third parties in relation to each other. Even otherwise, it is pertinent to mention that the Commission cannot take sides in a marital dispute. It cannot even be a forum to decide who is right or wrong and the Commission is purely the custodian of the transparency legislation and so was the CPIO & the FAA. Rather than focussing on the fact that many court cases are pending between the appellant and his wife alongwith the claim of maintenance, the CPIO & the FAA had to consider as to 3 whether the information was to be disclosed u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act of this particular RTI application or not and was there any larger public interest established by the ex-wife of the appellant to justify the disclosure of the sought for information or not rather than deciding a marital dispute.
At this point, the Commission draws the attention of the respondent authority to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in Review Petition [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012, wherein following observation was made:
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
With respect to the issue raised regarding the personal information of the third party and its non-disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act,2005, the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish 4 Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission &ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
"14. 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."
Also, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Municipal Corporation Delhi vs. Rajbir W.P.(C) 13219/2009 and CM 14393/2009, decided on 24.08.2017 had held as under:
"9..................Respondent has not provided any credible justification for seeking information regarding the personal assets of the MCD employee in question.
10. There can be no doubt that the information sought by respondent is personal information concerning an employee of MCD. Such information could be disclosed only if respondent could establish that disclosure of such information was justified by larger public interest. Even if the PIO was satisfied that disclosure of such information was justified, the PIO was required to follow the procedure given under Section 11 of the Act; that is, the PIO was required to give a notice to the concerned employee stating that he intends to disclose the information and invite the employee to make submissions on the question whether such information ought to be disclosed."
The Commission would also like to quote an observation made by the Commission in File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01632-SM, in the matter of Vijay Prakash Vs PIO, Air Force, dated 17.12.2008 reproduced as under:
"During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that the information sought was required for producing before the Competent Court where a dispute was pending between him and Dr. Sandhya Verma and the information was necessary for fair trial. The Respondents submitted that the information was necessary pertained to personal information concerning Dr. Sandhya Verma, a Third Party and had no relationship to any public interest or activity and, therefore, exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act. The information which has been 5 sought includes, attested copies of all the leave application forms submitted by Dr. S. Verma since she was posted to 4 AFSB, copies of nomination of DSOP/other official documents with financial implications and record of investment made and reflected thereon in service documents along with the nominations thereof, if explicitly made. The information sought is obviously personal information concerning Dr. Sandhya Verma, a Third Party. It is immaterial if Dr. Sandhya Verma happens to be the wife of the Appellant. The information sought does not seem to have any relationship to any public interest or public activity and has been expressly sought to be used as evidence in a dispute in a Court pending between the Appellant and Dr. Sandhya Verma. The decision of the CPIO, upheld by the Appellate Authority, in denying the information by invoking the exemption provision of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act seem to be absolutely right and just. We find no reason to interfere with the decision of the Appellate Authority and, thus, reject the appeal."
Decision:
In view of the foregoing, the Commission holds that the information sought by Ms S Then Mozhi, the Ex-wife of the appellant, was purely personal information of a third party and thus exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Hence, no information should have been provided to her and therefore the Order of the FAA to that extent was liable to be set aside. However, since the information has been already disclosed to the appellant, no such direction can be given now. However, the respondent authority as a whole, particularly the concerned FAA, is strictly cautioned to remain careful while handling the RTI matters and while passing any order, strict interpretation should be given to the sub-sections enumerated under section 8 of the RTI Act. The CPIO is directed to serve a copy of this order to the concerned FAA for his information.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 6 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 7