Central Information Commission
T Thanka Santhi vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 23 January, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/LICOI/A/2018/139735-BJ
Ms. T. Thanka Santhi
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
LIC of India, Divisional Office
Jeevan Prakash, Arcot Road
Vellore - 632004
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21.01.2020
Date of Decision : 23.01.2020
Date of RTI application 07.03.2018
CPIO's response 22.03.2018
Date of the First Appeal 13.04.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 10.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 22.06.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding the copies of Bio- data submitted by the persons (whose names were mentioned in the RTI application); the copies of documents (relieving/ousting order) submitted by the persons in proof of working of 85 working days; copies of appointment letters issues by LIC branches for engaging them as temporary employee, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 22.03.2018, stated that the information sought was held by the organization in fiduciary capacity, its disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy, and could endanger the life or physical safety of the individual and was therefore, exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 10.05.2018, upheld the CPIO's response.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:Page 1 of 8
Appellant: Ms. T. Thanka Santhi through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Roshith, Manager (CRM) & CPIO, Vellore through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information sought was not provided to her, till date. While explaining the background of the case, it was submitted that she had worked as a Temporary Assistant in Kuzhithurai Branch, Tirunelveli Division, Tamil Nadu, from 10.01.1986 to 04.04.1986 (85 working days). As per the Respondent Public Authority's advertisement dated 21.07.2015, regarding the Supreme Court's judgment on CGIT Award, she had applied for employment in LIC. It was stated that in due course, 31 persons were appointed as per the advertisement, in the LIC Vellore Division of Tamil Nadu and that her candidature was disqualified for the said post. Therefore, in order to compare her certificates with the qualified candidates, she desired the requisite information as she was apprehensive about the selection procedure followed by the Respondent Public Authority. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated the response of the CPIO/FAA and further relied on its written submissions. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.01.2020 wherein it was submitted that the information requested like bio-data of the employees relates to his/her personal and confidential information. Furthermore, the information has no relationship to any public activity or interest and would cause unwarranted invasion to the privacy of the individual. Moreover, there is no larger public interest that justifies the disclosure of such information. In the present case, the Applicant had selected 05 CGIT employees under Vellore division and sought the bio-data information. Therefore, the information sought was not provided as the same was exempted u/s 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore, the information sought, like the copies of Bio-data submitted by employees, 85 days' experience certificate, appointment letters, etc. were held by the employer in fiduciary capacity and could not be shared and therefore, was denied u/s 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, the copy of bio-data and other documents sought has personal details and confidential information like address, educational qualification, date of birth, etc. Disclosing such information can endanger the life or physical security of the individual concerned and therefore, the information sought was denied under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005. It was further submitted that the LIC of India, Divisional Office, Vellore implemented the Supreme Court order dated 18.03.2015 in the matter of CGIT Award dated 18.06.2001 in the Industrial Dispute 27/1991. Moreover, the details of CGIT Award implementation are also available in Corporation's website. A document on "The Selection process to be followed in implementation of CGIT Award in ID 27/91 and SC orders dated 18.03.2015 and 09.08.2016 in CA 6950/2009 and connected matters" is published in LIC of India website. The list of appointed under CGIT Award has also been made available in LIC of India website. Hence, it was prayed to the Commission to dismiss the instant Appeal. On being queried by the Commission regarding the suo-motu disclosure of the Experience Certificates of the qualified candidates in compliance with Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005, in the public domain in the interest of maintaining transparency and accountability in selection procedure, the Respondent maintained its earlier stance and stated that the selection process was dealt with by their Central Office and that the information sought was held in its fiduciary capacity. On the issue of disclosing details of the experience certificates submitted by similarly placed candidates, the Respondent reiterated that it was covered as personal information only. It was maintained that a due selection process was followed for appointment of eligible candidates in compliance with the CGIT Award. However, considering a large number of applications dealt with by the Commission and perceiving the dire need of the employment seekers consequent upon the decision of the Supreme Court in 2015, it was felt that this was the subject matter that required to be handled with utmost sensitivity and care so that the genuine applicants get employment respecting the spirit of the Supreme Court decision.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:Page 2 of 8
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
However, considering the large number of Second Appeals/ Complaints received by the Commission regarding granting of permanent status to temporary employees as per the directives of the Apex Court, the Commission felt that information relating to name of the persons granted appointment along with their experience certificates should be disclosed in the public domain in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of the Public Authority. In this context, the Page 3 of 8 Commission observed that voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption."
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on: 21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;Page 4 of 8
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
Furthermore, in this context a reference was also made to the OM no. No.1/6/2011-IR dated 15.04.2013 issued by the DoP&T pertaining to guidelines for the implementation of suo motu disclosures under Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission drew its reference to the objective of promulgation of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to provide for citizens to secure, access to information under the control of public authorities and to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. The preamble of the Act reads as follows:
"An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
WHEREAS the Constitution of India has established democratic Republic;
AND WHEREAS democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed;
AND WHEREAS revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information;
AND WHEREAS it is necessary to harmonise these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is expedient to provide for furnishing certain information to citizens who desire to have it."
Much before the legislative enactment of the RTI Act, 2005, our Judiciary, in a progressive interpretation of the Constitutional provisions, had paved the way towards delineating the Right to Information. In 1975, in State of UP vs. Raj Narain (1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333), Justice Mathew had ruled:
"In a government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way by their public functionaries."Page 5 of 8
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of R.B.I. and Ors. V. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015 observed as under:
"The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary that people have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for 'open governance' which is a foundation of democracy"
The High Court of Delhi in General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, decided On: 16.07.2012 regarding the disclosure of information for public interest, held:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance."
The High Court of Bombay in Shonkh Technology International Ltd. v. State Information Commission Maharashtra Konkan Region, Appellate Authority and United Telecom Limited v. State Information Commission Maharashtra Konkan Region and Ors., W.P. Nos. 2912 and 3137 of 2011 decided on 01.07.2011 held as under
"The RTI Act is an Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. The preamble of the RTI Act itself refers to this aspect and the constitutional principles enshrined in several articles of the Constitution. It is very clearly postulated that democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold the Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. Therefore, the RTI Act seeks to harmonize these conflicting interests while preserving the paramount nature of democratic ideals."
Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its important and significant decision passed by way of resolution dated 03.10.2017 declared that decisions regarding uploading of collegiums resolutions should be uploaded on website for ensuring transparency of collegium system.
" THAT the decisions henceforth taken by the Collegium indicating the reasons shall be put on the website of the Supreme Court, when the recommendation(s) is/are sent to the Government of India, with regard to the cases relating to initial elevation to the High Court Bench, confirmation as permanent Judge(s) of the High Court, elevation to the post of Chief Justice of High Court, transfer of High Court Chief Justices / Judges and elevation to the Supreme Court, because on each occasion the mater...
The Resolution is passed to ensure transparency and yet maintain confidentiality in the Collegium system."Page 6 of 8
With regard to the larger public interest involved in the matter, the Commission referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 wherein while explaining the term "Public Interest" it was held as under:
"22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest"
must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State of West Bengal (decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the following texts for defining the meaning of "public interest':
"Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus:
"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :
Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."
In Mardia Chemical Limited v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while considering the validity of SARFAESI Act and recovery of non-performing assets by banks and financial institutions in India, recognised the significance of Public Interest and had held as under :
".............Public interest has always been considered to be above the private interest. Interest of an individual may, to some extent, be affected but it cannot have the potential of taking over the public interest having an impact in the socio-economic drive of the country..........."
Every action of a Public Authority is expected to be carried out in Public Interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi, etc vs. State of UP and Ors., 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 625 dated 20.09.1990 wherein it had been held as under:
"Private parties are concerned only with their personal interest whereas the State while exercising its powers and discharging its functions, acts indubitably, as is expected of it, for public good and in public interest. The impact of every State action is also on public interest."
Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of LIC of India vs. Consumer Education and Research Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811 dated 10.05.1995 had held as under:
"Every action of the public authority or the person acting in public interest or its acts give rise to public element, should be guided by public interest. It is the exercise of the public power or action hedged with public element becomes open to challenge."Page 7 of 8
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the decisions of the Superior Courts and considering the larger public interest involved in the matter, the Commission advises the Respondent Public Authority to suo motu disclose the Experience Certificates of the persons granted appointment consequent upon the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 6950 of 2009 dated 18.03.2015 directing the Respondent Public Authority (LIC) to frame a scheme for regularization of those employees who were granted ad-hoc appointment for 85 days at intervals from time to time, in the public domain, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of the Public Authority.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeal stands disposed with the above direction.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 23.01.2020
Copy to:
1. The Chairman, L.I.C. of India, Central Office, 'Yogakshema', Nariman Point,
Mumbai- 400021
Page 8 of 8