Nishi Bhatt vs Delhi Police on 5 January, 2024

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Nishi Bhatt vs Delhi Police on 5 January, 2024

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                 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/DEPOL/A/2022/159723

Smt. Nishi Bhatt                                            ... अपीलकता /Appellant
                                 VERSUS/बनाम

PIO,                                                    ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Central District
Delhi Police
Date of Hearing                        :   05.01.2024
Date of Decision                       :   05.01.2024
Chief Information Commissioner         :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :        28.05.2022
PIO replied on                    :        06.07.2022
First Appeal filed on             :        -
First Appellate Order on          :        08.09.2022
2ndAppeal/complaint received on   :        28.12.2022

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.05.2022 seeking the following information:-

"I Nishi Bhatt had filed complaint vide DD No. 34 on dated 29/11/2020 to SHO Police Station Pahar Ganj New Delhi and after sent the same to DCP Office Darya Ganj Delhi on dated 05/01/2021 under RTI ACT 2005 in February 2021. On account on which ATR has been filed by Police Official Sh. Rajesh ASI on dated 18/03/2021 through RTI ACT 2005.

Please give under mention information Under RTI ACT 2005.

1. Kindly inform on what PHONE No. AND ADDRESS accused Ragini was approached for carrying out Investigation as stated in ATR.

2. What queries were put to Mr.Rajinder Bhatt for purpose of investigation."

The PIO, Central District, vide letter dated 06.07.2022 replied as under:-

"For point 1 & 2:- As per the report, the source of enquiry into a complaint/case can not be disclosed under the section 8(1)(G) of RTI Act-2005."

Page 1 of 4

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated nil. The FAA/DCP, Central District, vide order dated 08.09.2022 stated as under:-

"The undersigned has carefully gone through the contentions/submissions of the appellant put forth in the appeal. In view of the facts mentioned in the appeal, a fresh reply should be provided on the RTI application in view of current status of complaint. Hence, the appeal is remitted to PIO/Central District, Delhi with the direction to provide a fresh reply on the RTI application on merits, directly to the appellant under RTI Act-05, within fifteen working days of receipt of this order."

In compliance of FAA's order, the PIO, Central District, vide letter dated 13.09.2022 furnished fresh reply received form ACP/Pahar Ganj which stated as under:-

"1. Need no reply.

2. As above

3. Personal Information can not be provided in view of the safety & security of the complainant.

4. Copy of complaint has not been found attached with application.

5. Need no reply as reply had already given as mentioned by the applicant.

6. Details will be provided to the Hon'ble Court concerned as and when required by the Court.

7. It does not pertain to this PS.

8. As above

9. As above

10. The available required information is being provided as above.

11. Need no reply"

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

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Present Respondent: 1. Mr. Subhash Chander, RTI Cell, Central District

2. Mr. Satish, Inspector, PS-Pahar Ganj The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to her till date. She stated that Ms Ragini had made a complaint against her on PM portal and has raised false allegation against her. She stated that she has made a complaint against Ms Ragini on 29.11.2020 to DCP office Pahar Ganj but no action has been taken. She stated that she has sought phone number and address of Ms. Ragini and same has not been furnished to her till date.

Page 2 of 4

Furthermore, she has sought information relating to what queries were put to her husband -Mr. Rajinder Bhatt during investigation but same has also been denied by the PIO. She requested to direct the PIO to furnish information as sought in her instant RTI Application.

The Respondent stated that the relevant information has been furnished to the Appellant. They stated that enquiry was conducted in the matter and no cognisable offence has been made out and accordingly the compliant has been closed. They further stated that the information sought by the Appellant relates to third party and same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Decision:

Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that the information sought by the Appellant qualifies as third-party information and same is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further no larger public interest has been invoked by the Appellant. In view of this, Commission finds it pivotal to highlight a landmark judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein aspect of "personal information" has been explained in a highly structured manner. In this regard, ratio laid down 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. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:

"...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..."

[Emphasis Supplied] Page 3 of 4 Adverting to the supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case has categorized a variety of aspects that comes under the purview of "personal information" which are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Commission taking into account the facts of the referred case deny the request of Appellant for disclosure of the information and upholds the submission of the PIO. No further action lies.

Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालालसाम रया) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission