Central Information Commission
Begum Pasha Bee vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 9 January, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Munirka'
CIC Bbaven' Baba Gangna'ih N[arg'
Ne\n Delhi-110067, s'ebsitercic go\' in
Appeal No.:-C1C/BS/A/2016/00109 l-BJ-Fi!€l
Appeilal1t Mrs. Bezum Pasha Bee
u /o La; S\ed rlla- Ahoed K:ader-
No.25/2l.i.A CoIege. Hazuarn MaLa-r '
\rellore-632004
aPIo / ITO tE:<emplioflsl
Respondent w'id-I
irrta'- i. olo,ft. iro, Exeoptions'
.Arne)ie Buiiding 3'c Floor no' 12I '
\4.G Road. Chentrai-34
Thild PartJ' Khanqha -E- H€zarath,
Outub-e-VeLlore. Hazrath Ma'kkal'
\-ellore- o3200d
20.03.2017, 23.05.2017, 02.06.2017 , 06.o9.2017
,
Date of Hea.ring
28.72.2017
Date of lflterira Decisioa 23.03.2017, 23.0s.2017, 13.06.2017, 13.09.2017
Date of Firal Decision 05,01.20i8
Sare offiiins of RTI aeebcauon l;;:i;:;6ia
CF.CS respor.se
)are of ll;jng ijle =
::
i'rsi appra ol Ji.:Cia
I =- -- --
-
F rst AEpellate Aulh onEllS!!9II:_ -_-- 07.04.2016
r iB;;;a;;c.'Pt o: Lo:r r''a!--L br -he
ORDER
FACTS:
sought infor:rlailon ot 05 pomts r egardjng The appella.irt l'ide her RTI applicatlon r,he'h;;r+j13hL1:::*,*x:j:y"#li"t#*milI;1"T":xiilf;?::
dare r'nder :o of rss-e rhe aJoremenrioned Trusr. at *e "ii:p'"o"^""" *id :i;"*il;;i" ..ix lTR f:Jed by fie qp, non 12-A of fie lr AcL, t"t -r* i ad disclosed in *re sajd'trusr al.rd issues relared rhe-efo' r\e cP o'ide' t s lelle r dale d I ; l'?-'fl L ^11 Y1, I rhe inforoajon u'as e.rempted y:T=H::;]:1::;1f#;i;r, ;.
ffi *i1"$[# Y,,,ffi "]TpuuiJinLe.e.r :S.":
t"Ji;""".;;
RTlAcr.2005and ae apphcarr_$
uiy- rrr. ,".pon". o{ tie 25
cP-o, rhe
02 20ro
*XuiIHEl""J:i fi:'fi; it;';ii'Ja-' ii" J""i'"a'order daled
*ttt he reply of r-h.. CP:o'
.ii""-"a
Paee 1of 14
The Com!'rission r'1de its order dated 23.03 2017, while obseiving that dlere v"as a]l importalt and signiEcEnt lega] 'issue tlat ifl'oh'ed laJger public interest v'hich merits proper e:tarnination a!1d ddigence, adjou.ned t]]e heaiil1g ln the matter to be resumed at a subsequent date. Subseo.uenfly. on 23.03.2017. the Chief lntor!]1atlon Commissionei .i,as reoltrested to collstitute a laJger bench to adjudicate lhe matter' Ti'lereafler, a Division Bench of IC Sharat Sabharwal and iC BiEal J!'lka u'as constihrred 1"ide decision oI the Comnission dated 12.04.2A17, b :fre'el the mattej' HEARING:
Facts emetgi!1g dtiing the heariRg on 02.06-20771 The following were preeemr Complaiua4t: Mrs. Begum Pasha Bee along \i,iih Mr. GoDinaih through VC;
Respoudent: 14r. Shi! Pra.kash, iTo(Biempdon) tl:rough VC;
The Complajrtrart reiterated the contents of his RTI application a]ld furdaer stated that tt" -foJr]ut on sought by her in her RTI application invoh'ed iaJger public interest lt *u"-;.i"i*"a tnrt tie properry of rhe trust \x'as used for managing an Arat'ic boarding School',i,hich j]npa.rts ;du;ad;fl L:t Arabic 1alguage to arotnd 600 students in Vellore' theSchoolisalsoaffiliatedtoa-u11i\'ersi:vin\IelloreandEra]llsdegreesand fias also certiflcates for the courses offered.. It E'as further explained that a mosque ;;;;J b] ih; ,**r ura that a larger }luslim co'llnutut5'.ofiered pla]'erc a! the ;;.d;-";;qt i"v. The Appella:rt hig-blighted her apprehension on lhe large scale *a"io" of ii ,rra *i""pptopriatioJ of trust properties by-the tiusrwhich ol'neis ard di'closure of infornation was ln .n*-"f# i.q"."t"i the Cotrnission to Ere!:
"the ResPondent leiterared rts stard on non [. ;;;;6tu. interest llr its repl5', 'the RTi Act' 2005 and- submitled tftat a."J"iii" if i"r".-ation lrnder secdott e(l lljt of of the concemed
-^ r...., nrl].li. inrpresl qas 111slr'ed in d.rsclosu-e o"'nforElatlon tool fo! setdins personal issues ;;"" ::;'-r.;;Riieii,ibos .tro.la "ot be used as e]1 \\'i'& ihe coEcemed parties.
ofl a cue:\ f-om rhe Cornraission rega"rCil g the etierplion (laiEed b]uas rhe Trusr 'rnder declared as a i-1. iii, i. iq";i,;fr". 1".p"ra.", "6r1.e-Ur srarir I that the-Tiusr irii" i-"t ,t e l.tAcr,1960 a:ld had teen a1'a.i1irrg the benef,ts accordirrgly.
""J.i INTERIM DECISION:
by botL the par:ties end to Consiiering the facts of t}e case, the submissions ma'de provide a ierr and reasonable opDolfllni or tearing t" tl '.h" :?it:I:1lT-tl*:
o: hearEg Comrission d,rects ll:]e Regisuaj CIC to al:o rssue Eo[ce \]a]<kan Vellore under D-*' +L- 1_n .r {h,n^h--e-Haza:ath Qurb-e-vellore Hazaral}r i1^?:-"""ill"", zooi - addilion lo the AppeLlanl and the Respondenl ::;X;:';:; J,*iir.--g- ma:rer uilhin 03 *'eeks rroo the da:e o{ receipr ol this order.
"iliTi"^ 'r"
letter dated 04'07'2017 lssued a $ote: subseque[tly, the Registra!' clc vide its ;;;i;""* iil;;'itr zs'oz-'zo:,t' ttowever' the afore-Erentlo!€^d notlce Fas rot parties' sutsequeutlv' the Registrar' clct vide its lettet ;;;;;;-GtJ PrBe 2 of 14 dated 06.08-2017 issued a flesh notice ol heatlng to all corlcerned Parties ilcluding tbe third party to appear fot the hearhg ou 06.09.2017.
HEARING:
Facts eEergitlg during the hearilg on 06.09.20171 The foilowing were present:
Coaplaina:rt: N{rs. Begum Pasha Bee alongrt'ith Mr. Ifurli Kumaral1 {Advocate) and Mr. Gcpilalh uuough VC;
Respoadeut: Mr. ShiI Prahash, ITo[Exemption) through VC; Third ea*y: \{r. Mohd. Illral1 Fei, Aut-hoiized Represeniatj're 1*]anqh2-e-Hazeradl Qutb-e-Vellore Hazarath Mai<kan t]lrough VC:
The Representahle of the Third Party (Khanq.ha-e-Hazerath Qutb-e-lieilore Hazarath Maklcan) requested Lhal due to the preoccupation of his Senior Counsel in another cour-i roatrei, he cou-1d noi appear aid hence a short ad.joui:rment 1{'_as sought He further submitted that he did not have the rEandate frorrl his Counsel to argue ir1 *le insten-L lcatter a]1d therefore pleaded a.djoufiureirt lor a shod date keeping in view the
-t"."cr ri rh+ Ttird D2-i\ :nr-ohjec ir 4laa -.;, a-r--l T.c AnnFlla.1l - -Comraissron rtrar thel had akead\ scnl a $"ritten _pDresentatj\_e submitted to the I'ide email daied 25.07 2016 a:rd that t1-rey had no objecbon io -"he plea undertalien by t]le Third Pa-rB-'s Jepresentaljve for seekilg "ubrLiisior.
aciourlment ilt the aratte!. 'ltre said e-mail was not readiiy traceable as claiiEed by ul Reglstrar. CIC end Dy. Registrar, IC(BJ) during '&e hearing Subsequently' that o11 .e."amLation o{ t}e e-lrfai1s reieived i:r the Registy, it r','as obsen'ed the said e-'t1ai1$'as receiled 11 it}! a diiferent case nlrmber that Ied to the coniusion' it was alsc con'reyed that the ComLnission Era.v dispense $.ith the preseflce of Ho\a,€\,er.
tir" ipp.u--r, at the nel-t date ol heaiIlg al1d that she \1'ou1d be suitably lepresented by her Authorized Reore seo!atj.\'e INTERIM DECISTON.I:
Keeping vies rlre -acts oi r}te case ar:d submicsions mdce b] both rhe oa:rjes' the _-n A;;;i";". in txe $terest of natura.l jusdce, acceded to the rieques'L of the Third Palty's representative for adjourri.l:Eeut of tl1e matter to a!o'*rer date' The Registrar is aecotdinglli ilstructed to iri anothet short date lor hearing in t]-e maiter.
ThE mater stands adjourned.
09'2017 Etated Noter subsequently, the Registrar, CIC vide its note -dated.25. if.rJ trt"i" *i" a ,r"ea to replace
-on tire uame of Ic (SHl froro tfre--bench as he had .'fr".ay-a.-fii"a ftis olEce his tetiremert on 22'Og '2oL6' The Ho!'ble Chief ii-fi .tiotl co-*issiofler, vide its note dated 1o'o8'2o17torequested Ic (BJ) ard subsequertlv, it vras dccided s-chedr e hearirg in ili;ia;;";; ihe matter. to w.i soddi.ng, Preferably in the third week of the matter afte! shifting iio""*i"t, 2017. Thereafter, the negistrar,-clC lssued a otice for hearirg on Page 3 of L4
27.ff .2Of7 to all coacemed parties to appear for the hea!tulg on !8.L2.2O17. i lhe Registfar, CIC, \ride its letter dated O?.Oa.2O17 infoEEed ;ll the corcer4ed parties that the hearilrg in the tllatte! was le.scheduled to 2B.LZ,ZOL7 si-uce the heariBg fixed o!' 18.12.2017 Fas cancelled due to uravoidable circutnstances.
HEARING:
Facts e!1elgillg duriug the hearing o!. 28,!2.20171 The follorr.ilg ri'ere present:
Corrplailantr Mrs. BegJix Pasha Bee alongq'ith Mr. Gopinath (tr{:
thrcugh VC;
O99 4 43 11 4C7 ) Respoadent: Mr. Siriv Pra*iash, ITO (Exemption) through VC; Third Party: Absent;
The Third Par!,\ remained absent dwing the hearing, despite prior intrmation. Mr. R. Kesal,an, Netil'ork Engineer NIC studio at Vellore ccnfirmed the absence oI the Third Parry. It $ as noied by r\e Commission tlat at rhe last hearing heid on 06.09.2017, rhe Tj.Lird Parr.v haC sought adjournment on the grounds ihar his Sr. Counsel u'a.s engaged in another important mattei and could not attend tl:re ]..e:::ng. Th.e Ccmr::issior: ir the ir,.terest .f l1s!.1!3-l jlstice :r.l to -. prov'ide ieasonabie opponunill,- to lhe Third Party to oller its comnents i.lr the matter, acceded ro re r:equest at that heaJing. Repeatediy, seeking adjoummenls \ras no: consiiered to be desirable.
The Appellani's leDiesentative reitelated his earlier submission alld stated ttral the information sought peitailed to a public tlust. It u,as also idormed that the sajd propelq,- I-n'as o\nrned b.v the Appellant's forefathers al,]d had been fraudulentll' '.ali€n o$et and managed by h€r sister's husba-nd. It \i-as submitted that t]le tflrst undeiiook religious and educational activities lor the Local people but q'as v,iulessing a reduction in lootfall due to mlsuse of trdst propertl.r moneJ... In addition. ii q'a.s stated that the Arabic School flrn b,\, the said -Lmst had aiso q"iinessed a decrease iL1 intal<e of the students diie to disproporuonate diversion ol ltnancial resources oI the said public tmsi. The Commissiolr v'as in receipt of a t ritten submission from Appellant's Advocale dated 25.07.2017 I A6.o9.2C17. r'herein while er'plaining the background oi the r]larrer it',i,as s',-ated that she \,as one of the two legai heirs of -J:e subject properiies aioirg\i,ith her sister Bee Pasha Bee $,ho died on 29.07.2011 aid rvas survived bl, her husband Syed Osmall Quadri and t\to sorls. From the ir:come of tile Dloper"ies, ar Arabic College was maintained and a mosque \las a-lso situated inside the propert-l'. Mr Sl,'ed Osmal1 Quadri designated himseif as the head of rhe inosque a::d started selling rhe properties which were inherited bl' the Complainant aIId her sister Bee Pasha Bee. When confronted belore vafious authorities, the said Mr' Quadri claimed that these proper'Jes formed part of the public trust e]rd Lhat he being the head of the public '!mst viz., iihalqua-E-Hazrath, Quib E Vellore t'as entitled to setl the properties of the irust. lvhile re-iterating d1e contents of the RTI Application and CPIOS Reply, it was submitied i}Iat the issue involved Larger public inler€si and a broader anaLrsis.
Page 4 of14 It a'as irrther stated 'rhat fito issues arise lor consideration i.e. whether the Ir.colne Retums fi1ed by a Public Trusl l'v-ith rhe IT Depar-Lment were heid by the IT Department in fiduciary capaciB, a]ld whether the iT returns as such on a x'hole fi1ed b1,- the Assessee aI1d thar too by a Trust could be denied by invoking Section 8 (11 fi) oi the RTI .{ci, 2005 as 'persona-1 inJormation'. Explaining that the RTI Act w€s enacted to enable citizens io secure access io ihe information under the contuol of the public authorities, the Appellant relerred to the decisions of Lhe lion'ble High Court of Delhi in Generai l{anager vs. Virender singh {LPA 2A212012 dated !6.7.2A72). L.p.A. No. 501 oI 2009/2009 in Secretary General, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chanfua Aggarwal, V,r.P. No. 7265 oi 2007 dated 25.A9.2AO9 and the judgmen! of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in RBI vs. Jayantilai N. trtistu1 dated 16,12.2015. While statirg that the contention oI the IT Department rhat it held the information in iiducia:.r, capaeiq, \r,as completely misconceived, the Appeliaflt's representative referred io the judgment of the Hon'b1e Supreme Court ci India in the case of CBSE i.s. Adifi'a tsandopadhyay alrd Ors. (2011i B SCC 497 vherein it t'as stated thai ttre viord 'information available to a person in its flduciary relatuonship" cou19_ n_ot.be considered in a u.ide sense but in a -nonnal and - recognized sense. It $,as also stated 'Ll:lat 1T Returns n ere aJ] obiigadon under tlle stah-rie arld the assessee rvho performed -,iris obiigation couid not be considered as to Coing it in private capacir-,' rarher in the light oI statutory obligaCcn i'! was a public dury a]}d a public activitl. wiu! regalq to a irust that rras enjoying the benefit of the exemption under t]1e IT Act. It tas further menrioned *ftat once the retur-n $/as filed, ii fel1 within fie definition of "Right to information' under section 2 (g) r/w 2 (I) as rhe documents i.e., the IT Rerurns'i'ere under the control of ttle IT Department N'hich rvas a PuLrlic Authoriry. With regald to the conrention of the IT Depa-'tlnent that it l,lras a personal inforination, it lrras stated that the use of tn'ords "invasion of tl':.e pdvac] of t]1e individua-f instead of "an lndividual" r^rhich highlighted thal the legisladl'e iotent was to connect the expression "personal information" wirh the t'ord 'inditidua1". In this context a reference v-as also made to the judgment of rhe Hon'bie iligh Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 85,/2010 daied 24.11.2014 and ihe judgroent of Justice Vipin Sarghi in UPSC vs. R.K. Jain The Appellant's representatire also submitted that the activities oi',]:le CorPorate6 incorporated under the Compa-nies Acl were available $,,ith the Registrar oI Companies or other authorities as the case malr be. ALsoJ if there r';ere trade secrets or mteilectuai propert-v that could harm rhe comperitive posirion of ''l:le third parry, tlen Section 8 (1) {d) could be invoked and applying Section 10 information \Fhich \r'as oI commer,trial conidentiafiqv or in the nature ol trade secreis could be severed and other informarion pror'ided to her' lvhile ie- iterating rhat the information sought related to the properties held by the trust ar ihe iilrte of graliing exemption and the propelties sold bl- the trust rill now. income by u,ay oi sale proceeds and utilization ol the income, the Appellant's representative submitted that the information rras required in pubiic interest and to thro'w light on the iuncti.oning of the IT (Exemptionsi Depa-rament and its officials.
Pag€ 5 of 14 t.
l l I On a query from -*re Comraission rega-rding ttre locus st*rdi of the Appellant in the said public -,rust, r-'Ie Appellatt's representadve explained thar this tn_ist tas for:aec fraudr:1ent1y by ',he concerned Tl_ird parq- Itom .J-re properties oEned by ner a-nceslors $'iihour her ktoBledge. l,4oreover, ir q'as clarified that an exempion !'as clejmed by the said public trust unde! rhe relevant proeision oI the IT Acr, 1961 seeking certain ta: benefits llom the Goverrrment. Moreover, it was contended thar the inlormation sought \las neither any irade secret nor 'nas heid in fii'ttcialv capacity 1\,ith the Respondent public Authority and therelore could not be denied u/s 8(1)(d) or 8(1){e) of the RTI Act,2O05. Similarl-v, arguing on tle issue of larger public inreresr, it lvas exhibited that the conceEed third parry ipublic trust) had been serving the socieq, ihrough severa] sen'ices and rherefore the information soughi reiating lo ile propeflll details of the concerned pubiic trust rvas in larger public inierest since the nature of acrivii1'' performed u,as public in nature and celtajn tax benefits / e:iemptions rrere cl.aimed under the IT Aci, 1961.
The Respondent submitted that tl:lat Lhe Appelia.nt had sought inlomation arising orrt_ of a {a:nil5t properlr dispute .and that no latrger public interest \qas __. - sersed in its disclosure bv using RTI as a pi.atform ior frghting their personal dispr,rtes. Moreovex, he siood b:r the stand under'lalen by ihe CPIO in its initia.l response u/s 7(ij bl' denling lhe relevanr informadon to l]1e ADpellaIt. On a query irom rhe Commission regarding the nature oI l}le fusr, rhe Respondent subnitted tflat the concerned Third Parby (trust) was a Public Tr.tst and had beea claiming the exernpilon under the IT .\ct,1961 since the actilities performed bf ir \'Jas for public good. Ho\1,e\.er, it $.as expiained that the information scught \\'as held in f,rduciary capaciry with tlLe Respondent Pubiic Auihoriq and iheielore could not be disclosed to a.1y'iird parq.. However, the Respondenr cou.ld no! substantiate his contention regaiding Lrre ha-rm in prolidrng such information to the Appeilant on the ground of le-rger publjc inieresr.
The Coinniission $'as e-lso in receipt of a $'ri!ien submission from representaive of 'Jie Third Parq' (Khariqha-E-Hazarath Quub-e-vellore) dated 26.09.2A77 , rrherein at the outset it $'as stated that the Appeel r,^,as lrivolous and not maintainabie ulider the RTI Act since'r.l:ie informa*ion soughi. $'as persona-1 ir nanre. Explaining the background jt rtas submitted ihat information \(:as sought on fami\ leud in order ro grab a::d misappropriate the propelties belongi]lg io the Trusl, it u,as averred',hat no public interest l\'as iu,oh,ed in -Jxe matter. It \l'as also stated rhat because of i}]e family riralry, the Appellallt used io harass the third parw by f ing frivolous complainls before the Potice and \4rrit Petitions before rhe Hon'ble High Court of Madras A reference vJas made to \t.P. No. 8520 of 2015 for ma:rda:nus resEaining the third narq' Irom f-nnctioning as Chief Piest of the Trust \\'hich was subsequently cjismissed as $,ithdra$,n and W.P. No. 5554 of 2016 \!-hlch $'as still perding. Furtl-rermore, reierence u,as also made to Compiaint in Vellore North Police Sta'don registered as Crime No. 49a oi 20\6 t'hich t'as leferred to PaB€ 6 of 14 :h€ Relenue Divisional Ofhcer u/s 145 of Cr. PC who had after inquiry of the pa.rties disrnissed the Complajnt as no proPerty par'iculars \1'-ere furnished b-v Lhe Complaina:rt. Thus in order ro fill the iicu:.ra of the Complaint he had llled the abovi compiaint seeking d.etaiis of tl:e Trust Propertf. It $'as also stated that the Trust was established nea,rly- 3OO yea.rs ago and at tha.t time there was *,he decisioa of the Hon'b1e High Court no s.ritten trust deed. While referring to in W.P. No. 785 of 1987 and w.P. No. 1789 of i989' it 1('as stated that a Tlust coulC be established even r*."ithout a x'dtten Trust Deed based on which the 1T Depai-.r'Ilent had given exemption under Section 12A of the IT Act The Third Pa-r!-'T a.lso relied on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court of l'dia in S L P' No. 27734 of 2012 (Girish Ramachandra Deshpande ls' Central Information Comrnissioner and Ors.) to submit that properbr ceiails of a thlrd party could noi be disclosed. It was further submitaed that ii $'as the usual practice of the Appellent to drag in some legal forum or the o-Ll:rer in order to harass alrd tcrrrrent them and"heinthe main objecfive of the ApPella:lt v'as to neate a flutter in the peaceiul luncrioning of thi tnrst. It q'as ililerefore prayed to dis1niss tl'Ie Appea-1.
Moreol,er, the representative of the Third Parq' \,1de a::other wrirten submission dared 18.12-2017 stated that he \',,ou1d be oui of Chenlai from 25 12 2017 till 06.0L2018 hence he would be unable to atteni the heating on 28 12 2017 and requested the Commission to aoiourrr rhe hearng ajter 0501 2018 aJld to peir:lit him to appear lor rhe heaing through vC ;: uC Studio, Raja-ji Salai' Chennai.
The CoErmission took note of rhe issue regard.ing the 'personal information"
heid b1,41 individual in its personal capaciry and the personal inlormation Uela Uy r::e entities / corporationsT tusti ir their private capacity' In this a reference *,as d.awn on the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in Naresh Tiehen vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta ajlo Ors.(2015J 216 DLT 156 wherein "orr.""t, ii \1,as held:
"20. It h,c,s been contend.ed b! the pettioners tiaat the expressiolt 'personal itformation" must oiso extetid to rnformatio't reiating to carporate entities' Iiasmuch as they nay also fc;tl u'ttitin the def' tio1'L af expression "person' under the Generit Ciiu"es Act, 189/- as '&eI| ds urLder the Income Tut Act' 1961. Houteuer, I am utable to accept this contention fot t|1e-re@sot7 that ti i*pr."tnn'"p.rsonal hrforrratiott' os used i1 clause 0 cf SectlantaB(1) o1 tG e"t t;cls to be read in tte conl*d' of infannatiott relo'hng arL iitdividual. A plah readitg of tle aioresatd clQus.e wou.ld indicate that tle "personal in\oinition" k linked wilh 'ittua'sion of pnuacg oJ the *indiuiduat"
,nrlirithtal]. The use of t|'Le 1lord "tle" beJare the uord "rp*""io,.
liiairr.tg lir*s the sime with the expression 'personal irLformati'on"
21. Btack's lau dictiorLary, su:1h editiorz, itter alia' defines lhe word npersorral" a.s ulrd.erT "Tli u;ord- npet'sonat" rneans appertailiq to the P;ge / or J4 persa\ belangire to an irLdiuidual; limiled ia Lhe person; hauing ihe ftqture ar paiakirLg of tlY qualities af Lama'L behtgs. or of,r'otable propertq "
23. In nA aeuJ, the aforesaid reasoning u,ot4Ld cllso be applicable ta the etpressiotr npersonal" used in Section 8(1)(j of the Act. The el4)ressian 'itttiixidual' nust be canstn)ed iru o.n expansir.te sense end uould incfude a baCy of ittdiuiduals. The said exetrq)lion aould be auailable etet'L to u.1tr"camorated entilies as qlso piDate, closeig heE underTakirLg which are lit stbstcllice cllier egos of ttLeir slfirel Loiders. HolLJeue\ the expressiotl ir"diuiauql cq)'Lfiot be used as a synonym jor i'ne expressiori 'person'. Under ti'E General Clauses Act, 1897 a person is deined to "tnclude any svnpa,rg or associafroru or body of irtdiuiduclls, **hether incaryorated or r1oTi. Ihzs- uhereas a person wanid incluti.e Qn ittdiu;.dual as uell as ir,carporated erLtities qnd afiifiaat persans, the erpressiott 'ittdiuiduql' cettnat be interpreted ia include such ertfities. nE cattexa in whicfu tle e.rpi"essrorl "Dersono.l ilrfamation" is used uauld alsc) exclude it qpplicdtiarL to iarge,aid.ely held catporations. Wkile, corLJidefttial inionnatian of a coyporatiott is exempl from disclosure under Sectiott B(lJ @) of tlLe Act' tlBre is no t.op"- to e*iw..a6 ottLer tnjbrmatiort relaCng to sJcil corporailc)is ut-d.er Section 80)0 of the Act o's the cotxcept of a personal istfotmotiott caltll]1at in crdinary lcLngudge be understoad to meatt ittfonnalion pettqining
-lo c pulriic carporation. "
22. A perusal af the abote def,nitian dlso ir"diccttes lh".t ihe ordinary usage npersonalu k in the catLtert of an itdbidual luman being and c.f ttte u,ord not a corporate entitA. The t-1,5. Supretue Caurt hcls cLlso interpretetl the e:rpressiott "personal' to be used in ihe col.tert of an itzdiuiduai lwman beiq ar"d nat a corparate e11titg. In tne case oJ Fed-eral Comnxunicdtions Commissiott u. AT&T Inc: 2011 tis LEXIS i399 the US Supreme Court ccrtsidered ilE meaning of the expressiol.r "persox'al piuacg' tl'L the contert c'i ihe Freedom of Infonnation Act, whjctl requ;red Federql Agencies ta itake cenain recards antd cloqttuents pubiic!1lly auaiiable at" request Sl].ch *cauLd reasatctblA be e:tpected to disclosure tl)as e)aempt if tle record-s .orlstitute afl unwaraanted i'Lua'sion of personal pi'Ja'A' ?he L1S' supreme Court held thctt ihe expressio|t 'Personal" used in the aforesaid coiiert could tlot be exteftded to corporatialls because tfLe worcl "personaLo o.d_,na-lJ -efet-s ro indiuiduals. The Cour Leid t1ot i'e exPrP.sion 'personcrl" nust be giren its ord.inary meaning. l:he releNant extract of thLe iaid pdgment is als underr "Person' is a defa'"ed tenn in the statute; "personal" is not. wherL a statute does nol define a term, we typicct'llg "giue itte ph: ase its ord.inary meanirLg," lJolu*on r. Unired States, 559 U S', 559
-rl S. 133. l3O S. ct. 1b65, 176 L. bd.2d 1, s l2olo)J ^Personal" ordinailg PJers lo indiuiduo.ls. we do not usuclll'J speak of personal characteri'stLcs' tersonar. effects, persotl-o.l correspondertce, personal ittfluence personal 'tragedy -or ai- refetring to cotpotatior"s or other artirt'cial entifies This is nol to ,oi tt:rlt corporoticlts do iot haue corresponde'tce itrfluence ar tragedies .Persot@1" o descibe them-
o.filrcir o'a.ni onlg that we do not use tllr- word PaBe 8 of 14 Cefiai g, ii the chief et:ecutiue offer oJ a calporation aPproached the clliei tell gou'' ue Tnanaaf iff,cer qnd said, 'I iale simet-ning personal ro 'wcruld noi'assume th'E CEO wqs abaui to discuss companA lt'tsinPss' Responding ta a request for filarmatiarL ';n indiuidual- rnighl. sdg' "lhat's peioral."'A
-.o*p*rg, "o*ping ,pZk "^ary tuhen asked for inJotmatiot'L dbaui the ruoutd r"a; In fact' we ofien use ihe ward "persano'i" to mean prei,setf, tne oppasite af busirlessrel'ated: vle speak of personal el+)enses tad busliness per"onot Life and'aork life, personal opiruon and a "ig.rues, company's uiew,"
Mcieover, the Commission also exarnined -rhe r:ature ol fiduciary relationship in'o1ved in the instant rnatier whereby the Respondent denied rhe inforroation ol iTRs un<ier Section 8(1i(e) ol the Rll act,20'5 The Commlsslon refered to rhe Hon'b1e Supreme Couri decision in CBSE v AdiB'a Baldhopacihyay (20111 I SCC 497 wherein it u'as held as under:
,9 * Rltt thc 1t)ords 'infomLation auailable to a person in his rtduciary iJi"tii"ii' i* in'r.rttor, B(l)(e) of RTI Aci in its aormaL and uetl ""ia rec\)gnizea se'Lse- thc:L is 'o r'',? " - pc sJ '6 ^'.L
-' c::. ii' ; f 4"^l'-o3 are ta cap;eita, u)ith rekrence to a speiifc beneJiaary or benefrciaies who oJ the fidyciary -.7 iJ "iJk"a b ie proteciei, ai benefited ba ttLe actiot:.s trust' a E)ardian wilf' +nt.rDa ltith re|crcnte t-o the benef;ctai of 'he ;;i:;;;1;", ;;"oflpnvs:ca'tv r inl'"nl ien-tattv chattensed; a Parert lxilh .
i ,-"f.rL-"L to a cnita litt ,ger ir ct'chartered' clccol'mtant with rekrence to. cL clierat, q dactor or t1:LLrse u-'ith teJerence ta a patiet:rl' an ogent with ,.f"rLrn" to a prircipaL a Pailaer l',illl rekrence to another Parttle\wiih 'a director of cl coitpaiy u'tth'reJerence io cL ihare-holdet' dn.execaior arL referen(E io a legatei' o i;'ilh refercft'e t-o the parties to a lis' ""ti'"' omntatpt ltritt) referPllce to t|rc confidential itformaiion reldhtlg to tle .iptia"., and alt employee t'ith reference to business dealiigs/ transo.ction ol the empioger'' Fuitherrnore, the Hon'ble High Court oi Gujarai T l1j-eld]a y3:Tdtl :l*::
b""JJ f"tot-".ion Commiisioner ald Ors 'AlR n-r"?:t.T 2011 Guj 70 had obseryed ir.* ".i-"t^i"ir1 uodyi tustriuiion/ association ser"e public good rerrnl r l:im lo he \\-orkine tn a fiducieL:l capac-ty, and helo ds u'rder:
ut'der ''8.4. Respondetxt No. 4 k a retigiot's choitabte Trust' Jun'ctioniq public the Scheite forrutlated by tlr'e i"stna Court' haoing .considerahle Act' as.,-d- inlpartancE ind registerid under tle Bombay Ptblic T.fllrt riligious cl'taitabte"Trust. Con'sideing its nclfdfz- and acnvitbs' oJ swch emerglng stoted that Jrom the objects of *e fist' it cqi beirlleresl oJ acLivilA ' T\e Trust is, disclosute ilforznrllian is in retcLt',o' i n inu p"tblic eigog.a, it Publir acliLnf,es dlsclosure oI its solements ard accolnrs oJ Lcome-tcDi refun7s ..fl'1 o"tt"""1"ttt" arders cannot be uithh'eld under Se.tion 8(1)(4 or A)oJ the R T I Act'' Page g of 14 i ln tt-ris context, the Commissioo Cra$,'s reie:ence to the obsenalions made by rhe Hor'b1e Delhi High Cout jn WRiT PETITION (CI\,,IL) NO. 7265 OF ZOOZ (Date of Decision : 25th September, 2OO9l \a.herein rhe Court has clarified r1le definiticn oI "iniormation under Sec-ion 2(i) oi the RTI Act,2005 and held as underl 8 . "lr''funnation o.s defineci in Seciiol:L 2 (fi nreans details or mateial a.,)ct;)ab[e with tte public authariiA. The later porlan ol Sedion 2A
e):pqnds the defini1io11ia incfude details a|rn.aj"eicri which cant be accessed ur(ier qtlA otLLer IqD Jrom others, TtLe i,[a dertrLitial1.s haue ta be read fui:rmarLiously: TIE telm
-held bg ar utxder tlrc cotltal of any public autholit:! in Section 20 af the RTI Acl .rLcis to be rc,ad in q rrlarlner ttat it effecruates qnd b in hsmanA Loith the defruitiort of ihe term
-inforrnaiion as defined in Section 2(f1. The said etpressioir used it'L Section 2(j of the RTI Act should lnot be recLd t a rLantet thot it rLegates ar tllifes defiaition of the tenrL -informatiott iir Secfion 2(fl oj the RTI Act. Ii i.s wet settled ihat an intetpretdtian uhich ret\ders anather proui.si.on or paft ti.ereof redundqnt cr super|Luous slrculd be auoided. Information as d.ll:,edh iecliot 2(.,r1 o[ rhe RTI Ac1 inctudes ir ,-s o'nbit, the itormation re,iati-ng to anA pioc\te bodg whictt can be o,ccessed bA public authoit!! Ni-LC.er q.nA IdlD lor the time being in for<-e. T'nereJore, iJ a public atilwitg i,as a igtt and is entitled to access itlfomiaticll frcm a piuate bodg, u.rud"er otlA aiher laut, it is ittfonnation as dertned il Secfio,l 2A of the RTI Act.
The tenn -held bg the or under the cantrol of the public quthoritv used in Seetion 20 ol the Rfl Act r.uill include tnfoftftqtior\ @,l.ich the public authoritq is entitled to cccess under ang other law from d priDdte bodg,
13. ITlformation quqilqble urith the public authoritg fq.Us toithifl section 2A of the R?I Act, 'Ihe ld.st pqrt of sectioft 2 (fl brood.e,I.s the scope ol the term i1.forrI.@tion' to itlctude infonn@tiotL which is tLot al,ailqble, bat c<rft be qccessed bg the public authoritg from e prluqte quthorttg. Sucl. lnfoftnation reldtiftg to a pioqte bodg slwuld be @ccessible to the publlc duthoritu under ang other lqw. Therefore, sectiol 2n of the RTI Act tequires exqmlnLtton of the relegant statute or lla, qs broqdlg understood, utder tuhich a pubtic quthorttg c{m access inforrnatioft lrom a. Pioqte bodg. Il lqw or stqtute permits qtld qllotos the Public authoitA to access the info*7nr:tior. relqting to a pioate bodg, it roill fall withift the four corne.s of Sectio n 2n ol the RTI Act."
Fu;the:more, the Commission reiered to the obse(auons maCe bv Honble Courrs in the light of disclosuie oI infornalion in "publie interest", keepi::g in f,ie\','rle IIue spirit behind the promuigatioil ol the RTI Act. 2005, which are as r:n der:
Paae 10 of X.4 The Hon'b1e Supreme Coun oi India in SLP(C) NO. 752612AO9 (CBSE & Air. Vs. AditJ.a Bandopadhyay & Ors) had observed as under:
"37. 77\e righl to infomtat'ort is a c]rcished right. InfomatiotL and iLglx tc) informalion are iaL:erlded to be formidable toots in the ttands of responsibte citizetls to fighL cpfiuptiort and ta birq in transparencA and accauftiabititV . The prot;kians ai RTI Act sh.'uLd be enforcEd sticillJ (tftd" @Ll efiofis sf@uld be mo.tle to bi,r,g to iigiil t:t,e necessary inlarmatian urder Cl,alse (t ) of Sectian 4(1) af ihe Act utich relates to secunng trqtsparenc! arLd accountabilitA it ihe uorkiltg of public autlwities and in di,scouraging comrpiot.'' The High Court ol Delhi h General Malager Finance Ajr India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh. LPA No. 205/2012, DecideC On:16.07.2A12 rega-rdiag the disclosure of inforrnation for pubiic interest, held:
"8. The RTI Act, a-s per ii.s prp,amblp- wa.s enacted to p-tuable th.e cit;zen-s to secure eccess to infomLciiion under the corLtrol of public auihoitie1 in l.-{)r)m.!9 t-.i\s.?c.a-t1r! xni h.r.,t4lo.LlJit in-llye ,t:nrking a! e et./ "rcl?L public quthaniy. An ;.rLforrrLed cidzenry and trcmspqreftc! oi information have beert speileci out .Js uital ic democrsc! and to conlain comtptiott and. to hotd Go'nenxmenis and tlEir instrumentalities accautliable io tle gouented. The said legislation is undoubte-dlA one of tlw nost sigtiif.cdnt enodments of independent India arrT a landmark in Eouernance.' The High Court of Bombay rn Shonkh Technologr- lnternaCona-I l-td. v. State Information Commission Maherashtra Konkan Region, Appellate Authoriq' and United Teiecom Limiied v. Siaie lnformalion Commission Maharashtra Konkan Region and Ors., w.P. Nos. 2912 and 3137 of2011 decided on 01.07.2011 heLd as under "The RTI Act is dt1 Act @ provide far setTing out the prdchcal regirne of igltt to itlfomtd.tiotx for citi-zells ta sec-Lire dccess to ir,famaiian urlder th.e contral af public authaities. tn order ta pronLoie trtnspdrencA arld accauntabilitA in tle warkillg of euetg public axtthoitA. TLe preamble of the RTI Act iiself refers to this q-spect arLd ltLe constituiiarLql pinciples enshriwd in seueral atlicles of the Cot'Lstituticft. It is uery cleqrlA postulated th'dt democracq requires an infonned citizer'ry aftd transp.trencA of infomatioll uthich are uital ta its rttnclianitlg ctnd also ia contain corruPtioll and to hold tLtE Gouernmetlts and tleir iLstrumefttctlilies accauntable to the gauem.ed Tle reuelatipn, of infonnattott irl acnlcrl praclice is tilrelg to cotflicl with other public interests inctuding eirtcietl.t operations af the Gouemme,fis, optimum use of limited ff,cal resources and tlTe preser')atiott of confidentiaiity oJ sensitiue it'Lfarmcttion. Tterefore, the RTI Act seeks to hamon'ize thEse col'LfLi.tit'Lg interests l,Dhile preseruing the param.outTt nafLue af democratic i.d.eal^s."
PaBe 11of 14 Moreover, the purpoee and obiect oI th€ pro.oulgation of the RTI Acr,2005 r'as !o make rhe pub[c authodiies mcre transpaient and accountable to ihe public ?.nd to provide lreedom to 9v66' gl1i261 to secuie access to informaiion under ihe conrol of public authoriries, coltsisteni Firh public interest. in cider to promore cpenness, iransparenca and accouniabiiitr in administration a::d in relaiion tc marters connec;ed thereldth or incideniai rhereto, The Hon'b1e Supreme Couri in fJ:e rnatter of Bihar Public Sen'ice Commission t'. SaiYed Hussajn Abbas Ri4ii: (2C12) 13 SCC 61 vi'hile expLaining the term "hrblic -ntercsf held:
"22, The expression p,rbilc inleresi' has rc be understood in its true connctation so as to give complere mea-ning rc the relevant provisions of ihe Act. The expressiol-r 'public inteiest" rnust be vie$'ed in irs sricr sense'oith al1 its ercepdons so as to justifu denial ol a statuto4' eremption in terms of rhe Aci. In lis com::.ron parlance, the exprrssion public interest", like "public prrqeose", is not capable of any plecise cefinition. It does nct have a rigid neaning, is elastic and takes its coLour . Jrom the statute in u,'hich it occuis. tl'le conceDt var:\,ing $'ith iime and --
s-'ate oi societ)- and its needs (S:are of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh(ihlR 1952 SC 252]). It also rrearls the general g'elfare of the public that ri.arrants recognidon and proiecricr.; some-iling i]] rvhich the public as a $'hole has a siake iBlack s La$' Dictionarl' [8th Edn.)]."
It is rroteci that certain issues have been raised in the RTI application t'hich le1ate to disclosure of properq' deiails ol rhe Public Charitable Trus'! that caiego.cally $'orks lo! the public t'eliare. Moreover, during the course of i1le hearing lt was categorically st-aled b-v the Respondenl thai regisuation und€r Secii,rn 12A oi r.\e IT Aci, 1961 tr'as grarted'-o the Third Parry arrd that -'ir.ey tere claiming several exemptions/ benefits uilder L|1e said AcL Therefore il is apparent that the matter certalni:r' ii1\'ohf€d ]arger public interest since the Gol.ernment was granting sei'era1 .'xemptions io the Third Party ftom pa]'rnent ci taries hence ti-rere oughr to exist -JansParency a:rd accounrabiliqr on the actii'iries of rhe ThirC Parq'.
Also. ihe Hon'b1e Supreme Court oi tndia ir: the decisiofl of R.B.I' 4nd Ors' y' Jq7d.ntila.l N, Irlkirg dftd Ors, Traasferred Case (Civil) No' 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petitiou (Civil) No. 707 of 2O12 decided on lo.t-:.:ots, B'hLte dealing wit-h signilLca:.rce ol lree florv of informalion had staled as under:
"Tha- id-e.rl ol 'Govemment bg tte oeople' makes it necessary thqt p-eople^ haue accesi to infotmanion on mctiers af public carLcenl' The ftee fLow of itliorrtuation aboui afJairs oi Galefln'Lent paues wct!) for debate in public pilicg and, fosters iicountat:iltty in GoL)enllnent Il creales a condttion for 'operi goL,enrcnzce' uJhich is a fo'"irLdaiian of derr'acracg'' Pag€ 12 of 14 The Ccmmission fuflher :efered to tle fuIl bench decision of the CiC ir File No.CIC/LS/A/ 2OO9IOO19O dated O9.OB.2OLO s,herein -Lhe CIC had de,trided on ihe issue of disclosure oI iniormarion by the public charitabie tRisis as under:
i0. "I e haue giuen a seious thaugllt to the matter. We haue alsc taken note, ai the pre-ctmble of the RTI Act which a,ims at promohng transparencA anci accountabilitg it., the uorkjtg oJ ihe euery trUti. euthoity. n n;s cofiert, it,uauld be ept ta aduetl ta sub sectioft 15 af sectiarL 2 af ttLe IT Act uhic\ Cefines 'chr;rrab,e pu,ttose". This sub o exirac:Ld belou., ,- "15. 'Chaitable purpose, includes retief of the "".r,o, poor, education, medical reii.ef and qduaruc,ement af .ing other object of gerirat pubtb uiilitg.
lfeedless to sag. auoued purpose for uhich thpse :J:-sttf.Ltions/ eniiiies came into existeftce is chclitg. Chaitg and secrec! ore canua(iidion iI tems. AnA chclitable institlthan should haue ruo secrets aru7 should be open ta public for aI[ purposes, including its fiwnces. In other utords. in . - -.---..9!..!P!1iqn it will be. iry..!he.lqr-g!:l pllplic interest. if the identltl! af the-
- il@iictbie irsGlinsiihrdo,?s t."iiies ii:"n are jraited e*"*pion'froi' incorne tot. urtcier tlg stdtltory prouisions are placr.d in the pubiic dorr.atn. Hence, ift exerc:;-se of powers utlder sectian 2S(S) of tlLe RTI Act, we r,.erebg recommetzd tnat tl.e ideniii! of the chadtable ttusts/ instituhcns/ ennties tuhich hate been granLted exemption Jrom itcome toJ. under seajon 10 & under sectiorc 11/ 12 of tle Incame Tax Act is plaeed in pubtic domain bg udA of suo-moht ciisclasure by the CBDT in teirrs of sectian aU)@ t/u) section 4(21 af the RTI Aci.' The above mentioned decision of rhe CIC had been referred i:: File no.CIC/RM i A/20 t41004628 (dared 23.12.2016) File no. CICi RNi/A/2014/ 003758/BS/9478 rcared 11.0-.20-6) al]d tite No. CIC/ DS/-A/ 20I:
/000688/RNl tda--d lC 04 2013 .
The Commission felt rhai '-1e Supreme objective/ motive with vtich ..he Cental/ State Information Commission s,ere constiluted were to s€t out the practical regime of right to iniormation lor citizen$ tq secure access ro iniormation under the control cf public authorities, in order to promote kansparencl' arci accor-rrrabiiiq' in the rvorking of every public authori.iy. In the light of rhe preambie of rhe RTI Act, 2005 there are several exemptions carved out under Secdon 8 of rhe RTI .{ci, 2005 \l',hich ca]r be used b-r' a Public Authodry to deny information depending on the facts a1.!d circumstances of each case.
The purpose oI the RTI Aci, 2005 is transparenclr and accountabilig' in rhe functioning cf entities ri'hich impact citizens' daily lil'es. Recognizing the significance of the RTI Aci. 2005 in emporvering people wi',h the meats io scrurinize government action, ihe Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its judgmeot delivered by Justice Ravindra Bhat in Indian Olyropic Association -Vs- Veerish Ma1ik and otiers(WP)(Ci No. 876/2007 had held as belorr,.:-
P.ge 13 of 14 I "Tle Act marks a iegislatiue nLilestane in tle post itldependence ere io
i)-ther democrdcA. It en'q)cu.jers citizens qnd infonnatiatl a,pplicants ta demand antd be sLipplieci utith in-formation about pu.b\c recards.
ParliamerTtqry endc-at)or is ia ertenl, it also to pubLic aullnifies uhich itpact citizens dailg .iiues. T'l8 Act mzndetes disclos,Lre of all manwr ol ir',formatiott clnd aba.iishee the coilcept of locus stand:i of the inlonnation applicant; na i-Lstjficaiictl jor opplging $ar information) is necessary,' dec,isions and Cecisian makhlg processes, tLthich afJ"ect liues oJ indiuiduals and graups of in:,zer,s are nc-e) operu ta exqminatian Parliamentary iltentiotl appatentig was to erftpower people uith tlle means ia scrut1n1ze gouen'Lilellt and pubLic processes: cilrd en"sure transparetTcy. At liw iame tirne, rhe nee(i of so€"eiA at iarEe. s.td. Gouemments as roell qs indfuiduaLs irL parti<:" ar. io ensure it,-ci serlsidr)e infonnalion is kept aui. af bourris hctue also been accommodated under tlE Act.' FINAL DECISION Iieeping in 1,iew the facls ol'.he case end rhe submissions made by both the larties as a.' ,'-alsi; the judgmi=iis citeit aboo'e, tu1e Respondei! is diiected to prorlrde a poiii lurse iesponse to the AppeLlart witiair a pedod of 15 days ftom the date of receipt oi tlis ordet The Appea-l slands disposed \ii1li tile alrol'e al-ection.
SD,/. sD/-
(Dilya Prakash Sinha) iBima1 Julkal
Information Commissioner Ifl formatiofl Cor]1!B,issio!re!
ticaled True C
{,sr
t3
Paee 14 of 14