Central Information Commission
Anubhav Khanna vs Directorate General Nacen on 9 March, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DGNAN/A/2024/628989
Anubhav Khanna .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Academy of Customs,
Indirect Taxes and Narcotics,
Zonal Campus, C R Building,
Sector 17C, Chandigarh - 160017 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.02.2026
Date of Decision : 09.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.03.2024
CPIO replied on : 18.04.2024
First appeal filed on : 18.04.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 15.05.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09.07.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.03.2024 (online) seeking the following information:CIC/DGNAN/A/2024/628989 Page 1 of 14
"This information is required in context of Sanjiv D. P. Azad (Emp ID- 8930) who belongs to IRS-CBIC service and is presently employed as Assistant Director, NACIN, Chandigarh. His niece Prerna has filed a FIR of 498 A against me and my aged parents and according to law I am entitled to this information as according to the information received, her parents have made an expense of Rs. 65 lacs in the marriage as claimed by them in the FIR.
1. Annual movable property returns (cash/jewelry/cars etc.) filed by him till date. (Relevant decision of CIC dated 20 March,2008 No. CIC/OK/A/2007/01493 & CIC/OK/A/2008/00027 regarding providing such information to public is attached for ready reference). He is bound to do this declaration according to The All-India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.
2.Please inform me any permission taken by him from your department for accepting gift during his tenure of service.
3.Whether as per your department records, he was involved in borrowing or lending money? if yes then provide the details and also provide the information whether he has taken due permission from your department and filed return of his liabilities? (provide photocopy of all such documents furnished by him as per staff regulation /other relevant rules)
4.Gross Salary and its various components like basic pay DA, Conveyance, HRA and other allowances of Sanjiv DP Azad currently. (disclosure of such information to public should be made as per RTI act 2005 under section 4(1)(b))
5. Please inform me the declarations that he has made for spending more then Rs. 15,000 during his tenure of service. He is bound to do this declaration according to The All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.
6. Declarations made by Sanjiv Azad for doing modifications made to his immovable property and the related expenses.
7.Please inform me the declarations that he has made for giving any kind of gifts to his relatives or dependents and the amounts involved.
8.Please inform me the declarations that he has made regarding acquiring any kind of movable property via inheritance.
CIC/DGNAN/A/2024/628989 Page 2 of 149 Please inform me the declarations that he has made regarding acquiring any kind of immovable property acquired by his family members.
10 Please inform me the declarations that he has made regarding acquiring any kind of movable property above Rs. 15000 acquired by his family members."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 18.04.2024 stating as under:
"In this regard, it is informed that the information sought by you in point no. 1 to 10 vide above said RTI application pertains to third party information. This office had called for the consent of the official to share the information. The official had denied sharing the information sought by you. Therefore, the RTI application is rejected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.04.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 15.05.2024, held as under:
"5.1 I have gone through the original RTI application dated 19.03.2024 of the Appellant, reply dated 15.04.2024 of CPIO and First Appeal dated 18.04.2024 with reference to the legal provisions of RTI Act, 2005, his submissions during personal hearing dated 30.04.2024 & submissions made via email dated 30.04.2024. Therefore, I proceed to examine the appeal Dated 18.04.2024 based on the available facts of the case.
5.2 I find that appellant has sought certain information in respect of Sh. Sanjiv D.P. Azad, working in NACIN, ZTI, Chandigarh vide RTI application dated 19.03.2024.
5.3 I find that the requisite information was denied by the CPIO by observing that they had called for the consent of Sh. Sanjiv D.P. Azad to share the information. Sh. Sanjiv D.P. Azad has denied sharing the information sought by the Appellant. Therefore, the RTI application was rejected by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(J) of the RTI Act, 2005. Aggrieved CIC/DGNAN/A/2024/628989 Page 3 of 14 by the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed instant first appeal dated 18.04.2024.
5.4 Here, I find that since the information sought, vide RTI application dated 19.03.2024, pertained to personal details of Sh. Sanjiv D.P. Azad i.e. third party under Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, 2005 in this case, therefore, Sh. Sanjiv D.P. Azad, being third party under Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, 2005 was asked by the CPIO, whether this information should be given to the applicant or not. I find that Sh. Sanjiv D.P. Azad submitted his reply dated 02.04.2024 which is as follows:
"It is informed that my wife's niece Ms. Prerna has filed a FIR of 498 A against Sh. Anubhav Khanna due to marriage dispute. Sh. Anubhav Khanna has demanded my personal information with mala fide intention and wants to harass me & my family and leakage of the same could cause undue hardship to me and my family.
In this regard, it is informed that I deny/refuse giving this information as this information relates to my privacy. The RTI Act is also not giving such permission and this is also violating my fundamental right mentioned in Article-19 & 21 of Constitution of India. It is also informed to you that the desired information can also be denied under Section 8(1) O of the RTI Act, 2005.
Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP(Civil) No. 27734 of 2012 in case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs Cen. Information Commr. & Ors on 3 October, 2012 has also clarified that the personal information as per clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 cannot be given to third party.
Hence, it is requested that my personal information may not be shared to any private person including RTI applicant.
5.5 I find that it is admitted fact of the case that Ms. Prerna niece of Sh. Sanjiv D.P. Azad's wife has filed a FIR of 498 A against Sh. Anubhav Khanna due to marriage dispute. Section 498A deals with cruelty towards a woman by her husband or his relatives. In this case, there seems to be a marriage dispute involving Ms. Prerna and Sh. Anubhav Khanna, leading to the filing of the FIR/RTI.CIC/DGNAN/A/2024/628989 Page 4 of 14
5.6 I find that the directions of Hon'ble Justice S.N. Dhingra of the Delhi High Court to the Police in the judgement of Neera Singh Vs. The State (State Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Others - CRL-M.C. 7262/2006 dated 23.02.2007 pertains to criminal proceedings before the court. The facts of the case & proceedings before the First Appellate Authority and the laws under which the proceedings is taking place are completely different. The comments of Justice S.N. Dhingra's directions to the police in the above cited judgment may not be applicable to the issues under consideration before the FAA, as the case does not relate to the RTI Act. CPIO & FAA are authorities created under the RTI Act, 2005 and therefore they have to function within the ambit of the RTI Act & Rules made therein. In this regard, I find that neither CPIO nor FAA can exceed their mandate.
5.7 I proceed to examine the grounds of appeal taken by the Appellant in support of his contention as to why the information should be supplied to him with respect to information sought by the Appellant in his RTI application dated 19.03.2024 from point no.1 to 3 and 5 to 10. In this regard, I find that following judgements on the issue of disclosure of personal information under RTI to be of great importance:
(i) In the case of Shri Jai Gopal Gupte Vs. CPIO, O/o The Engineers India Limited, Reg. Office, Engineers India Bhavan, Bjikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110055, (File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001781, File No. CIC/SH/A/2016/000241, File No. CIC/SH/A/2016/001739 and File No. CIC/SH/A/2016/001380). Shri Sharet Sabharwal (information Commissioner) on 20.01.2017 held as under:
"These files contain appeals in respect of the RTI applications dated 18.12.2014, 12.8.2015, and 16.12.2015, filed by the Appellant seeking information on various issue regarding Shri Suresh Kumar Goel, an employee of the Respondents. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, he has approached the CIC in second appeal in all the four cases.
2. In his appeal dated 6.8.2015 to the Commission, concerning the RTI application dated 18.12.2014, the Appellant has stated that Shri Goel's daughter gave a sworn affidavit to a court, alleging that her father gave dowry and spent Rs, 35 lakhs on her marriage. He stated that the information sought by him was needed to protect himself and his family from persecution and harassment resulting from the allegations made by Shri Goel's CIC/DGNAN/A/2024/628989 Page 5 of 14 daughter regarding dowry. It, therefore, appears that there is a dispute between the families of the Appellant and that of Shri Goel.
3. In the RTI application dated 18.12.2014 (File No. 1781), the Appellant sought information regarding the personal trips of Shri Goel to foreign countries and permission connected with the same, rules applicable to the leave of Shri Goel, leave encashment obtained by him and copies of his movable and immovable property assets and liabilities declarations. The Respondents stated that information in response to above RTI application was provided by the FAA vide his letter dated 23.9.2015. On perusal of the reply of the FAA, we note that he provided the information regarding the personal trips abroad of Shri Goel, even though this was information of a personal nature, exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j). Не also provided copy of the leave rules. He denied the information concerning encashment of leave under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act and we see no ground to interfere with this reply. The FAA also provided a copy of the last immovable property return filed in 2012 and of the movable property return, even though in terms of the Supreme Court judgment dated 3.10.2012 in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012], such information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, in the absence of a finding of larger public interest. The Appellant has not established any larger public interest. His personal dispute with Shri Goel and his family cannot be treated as the ground of larger public interest.
5................... However, he denied the details of monthly salary and of sick leave under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In his appeal to the Commission, the Appellant has prayed for direction to the Respondents to provide the complete information sought by him and penal action against them. In the above context, we note that the CPIO provided more information than was due in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. In this context, we note that the information concerning the movable / immovable property details is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act in view of the following observations made by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 3.10.2012 in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. [Special Leave Petition CIC/DGNAN/A/2024/628989 Page 6 of 14 (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012] and the fact that the Appellant has not established any larger public interest:-
"12. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his employer and also details viz movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of the gifts stated to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the above-mentioned information sought for qualifies to be "personal information" as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
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."
6. In view of the foregoing, we find no substance in these four appeals and these are dismissed."
(ii) In the case of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs. CBDT (CIC/DS/A/2011/003847), CIC on 26.07.2016, held as under:
"The appellant should have shown public interest in his demand for disclosure of such personal information. The Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 8753 of 2013 Shailesh Gandhi vs. CIC held that since the right to privacy has been recognized as a fundamental right to which a citizen is entitled to, therefore, unless the condition mentioned in Section 8(1)(j) is satisfied, the information cannot be provided. The burden on the applicant is much more onerous than may be a routine case. Appellant in this case did not discharge this burden. Since there is no public interest behind the demand for this information, appeal is rejected."
I also find that the issue has been addressed by superior Courts:
CIC/DGNAN/A/2024/628989 Page 7 of 14(iii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009; Girish Ramachandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013)14 SCC 794. The relevant para is reproduced 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....."
(iv) I also find that the issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that for seeking personal information regarding any employee of the public authority the applicant must disclose a "sustainable public interest". The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 13.12.2012 in Civil Appeal No. 9052 of 2012 in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commissioner vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. [reported as (2012) 13 SCC 61] had held that exemption provided under Section 8 of the Act is the rule and only in exceptional circumstances of larger public interest the information would be disclosed. The relevant observations are reproduced below:
"23. 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 CIC/DGNAN/A/2024/628989 Page 8 of 14 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. It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recommendation and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)].
24. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision......... The information may come to knowledge of the authority as a result of disclosure by others who give that information in confidence and with complete faith, integrity and fidelity. Secrecy of such information shall be maintained, thus, bringing it within the ambit of fiduciary capacity. Similarly, there may be cases where the disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. All these protections have to be given their due implementation as they spring from statutory exemptions. It is not a decision simpliciter between private interest and public interest.
It is a matter where a 17 Page 18 constitutional protection is available to a person with regard to the right to privacy. Thus, the public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance factor between right to privacy and right to information with the purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be served in the larger public interest, particularly when both these rights emerge from the constitutional values under the Constitution of India." Emphasis supplied
(v) I further, find that the Central Information Commission, New Delhi have also taken the same view in case of Paramjeet Singh vs. CPIO vide CIC/CCCEC/A/2020/695024 dated 20.05.2022 and dismissed the appeal of the Appellant. In the instant case Sh. Paramjeet Singh had sought the similar type of personal information of one of the officer/employee like family detail, departmental action, marital status, list of Movable/immovable properties, annual property returns, permissions for CIC/DGNAN/A/2024/628989 Page 9 of 14 acquiring Movable/immovable property, foreign trips, list of investment, PAN & Aadhar number etc. which was expressly denied by the CIC. The relevant paras of the order as reproduced below:-
"As it follows, in the considered opinion of this bench the Appellant has not urged larger public interest in any of the above referred contexts, and therefore the Commission is not inclined to ascribe any credence to his contentions.
Having observed as above, no relief is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly."
5.8 It is clear that there is a dispute between the families of the Appellant and the relatives of Shri Sanjiv D.P. Azad. Thus it is clearly indicative of a civil dispute having all the trappings of a personal vendetta. I find that the appellant has failed to justify, vide his appeal dated 18.04.2024, the serving larger public interest upon disclosure of such information. I find that his personal & civil dispute whatsoever with relatives of Sh. Sanjiv D.P. Azad cannot be treated as the grounds of larger public interest.
5.9 I observed that Right to Privacy has been established as Fundamental Right. The information sought in the RTI application is inherently personnel to the person and has no connection with his/her public functions, sharing of such information is considered beyond the perception of decency and is invasion into another man's privacy as the employer who is privy to such information only incidentally but does not own the personal information of an employee.
5.10 In this regard, I take notice of the reply of Sh. Sanjiv D.P. Azad dated 02.04.2024, who, being a third party under Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, 2005, has not given his consent to provide such information, therefore, this information falls under Section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and may not be provided to the appellant and I do not find any infirmity in the decision of the CPIO in this respect.
5.11 Further, with regards to the information sought by the Appellant in his RTI application dated 19.03.2024 in point no. 4. I find that such a disclosure has been made mandatory by Section 4(1)(b)(x) of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, I direct the CPIO to provide the information sought by the Appellant in point no. 4 (i.e. Gross Salary and its various components like basic pay, DA, Conveyance, HRA and other allowances of Sh. Sanjiv CIC/DGNAN/A/2024/628989 Page 10 of 14 DP Azad currently) of RTI application dated 19.03.2024 within the period of 2 weeks from the date of order.
5.12 As per the contention of the Appellant that the information needed to be made public under All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1986, in this regard, I find that All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, are not applicable on Central Govt. employees.
5.13 In view of the above and provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual would fall within the exempted category, unless the authority concerned is satisfied that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. As stated above the Appellant has not established any larger public interest for disclosure of the information sought in point Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 10 of RTI application dated 19.03.2024. Since there is no larger public interest behind the demand for this information, appeal is rejected for these points.
Accordingly, I pass the following order.
In light of discussions & findings above, I pass the following order:-
(i) I partially allow the appeal with respect to information sought at Point no. 4 of the RTI application dated 19.03.2024, as discussed in para 5.11 supra.
(ii) I find that the information sought in point nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 10 of the RTI application dated 19.03.2024 requested is personal in nature and the Appellant has not established that disclosing of such information would serve a larger public interest. Therefore the appeal on these points is rejected under section 8(1)(j) of RTI ACT, 2005 and reply dated 15.04.2024 of CPIO is upheld with respect to aforementioned points."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-CIC/DGNAN/A/2024/628989 Page 11 of 14
Appellant: The Appellant's father Shri Maharaj Saran Khanna appeared through video conference.
Respondent: Shri Rajesh Roy, Assistant Director-cum-CPIO, appeared through video conference.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 09.07.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service. Thus, Regulation No. 10 of the Central Information Commission Management Regulations 2007 has not been complied with by the Appellant.
6. The representative of the Appellant inter alia submitted that the Appellant was not satisfied with the reply given by the Respondent as the desired information was not provided till the date of hearing.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that reply provided by the CPIO was in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act and that information sought at most of the points pertains to personal information of a third party, exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Respondent, however, could not place on record any document evidencing compliance with the specific direction of the FAA regarding disclosure of information at Point No. 4 of the RTI application.
8. It is noted that the Appellant is not directly related to the third-party, who happens to be a relative of his (Appellant's) estranged wife.
Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that hat the FAA, vide order dated 15.05.2024, had categorically directed the CPIO to provide information relating to Point No. 4 of the RTI application within a stipulated period of two weeks. However, no documentary evidence of compliance with the said direction has been placed on record by the Respondent either during the hearing or thereafter.
10. The Commission observes that orders of the FAA are binding on the CPIO unless modified or set aside by a competent authority. Non-compliance of the CIC/DGNAN/A/2024/628989 Page 12 of 14 FAA's order defeats the very objective of the RTI Act, 2005 and undermines the appellate mechanism provided under the Act.
11. The Commission further notes that the information sought at point No. 4 of the RTI application is covered under the information to be disclosed upfront by each Public Authority as mandated under Section 4(1)(b)(x) of the RTI Act.
12. With regard to the remaining points (Point Nos. 1-3 and 5-10), the Commission concurs with the findings of the FAA that the information sought constitutes personal information of a third-party, disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. Therefore, the reply of the Respondent on these points is found to be appropriate and in consonance with Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. No further intervention of the Commission is warranted on these issues.
13. In view of the foregoing, the Commission directs the Respondent/CPIO to strictly comply with the directions of the FAA contained in order dated 15.05.2024, specifically with respect to Point No. 4 of the RTI application, and provide the requisite information to the Appellant in compliance of Section 4(1)(b)(x) of the RTI Act within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
14. For the remaining points of the RTI application, the reply furnished by the Respondent is upheld and no further intervention is called for.
15. The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कु मार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूच ना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date CIC/DGNAN/A/2024/628989 Page 13 of 14 Copy To:
The FAA, National Academy of Customs, Indirect Taxes and Narcotics, Zonal Campus, C R Building, Sector 17C, Chandigarh - 160017 CIC/DGNAN/A/2024/628989 Page 14 of 14 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)