Central Information Commission
Mr.Ved Vrat Singh vs Bank Of India on 2 April, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000496/18220
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000496
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Ved Vrat
S/o Sh. Babu Singh
R/O. B- 1386/2, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi- 110062
Respondent Mr. R. K. Lenka,
PIO & Deputy zonal Manager
Bank of India,
Zonal Office, jeevan Bharti Building
Tower- 1, Level- 5
124, Connaught Circus
New Delhi- 110001
RTI application filled on : 29/08/2011
PIO replied : 24/09/2011
First appeal filed on : 24/10/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 23/11/2011
Second Appeal received on : 07/02/2012
The Appellant had sought information with reference to the copies passed by the Appellate Authority in
Disciplinary proceedings against various employees of the Bank.
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
1. 1. Kindly provide the. The information sought by you at Serial No.1 are Orders passed by the
following documents to Appellate Authority in Disciplinary Proceedings against various employees of
the under signed the Bank (from a to g) and office copy of appointment letter Issued to Govind
applicants as enclosed Singh Chaudhary at No.(h) Hence, the same fails under exemptions provided
on page no. 7 under Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act i.e., personal Information, the disclosure of
which has no relationship to any public activity or Interest and which would
cause unwarranted Invasion of the privacy of the individual, and as such, the
Information soughtby you can not be provided to you.
2. Who are the complaint As regards to the Query made by you a Serial No.2 we inform that either on persons in the matter of receipt of a complaint from a person or the Bank of its own i.e. on getting dismissal activities? knowledge of the misconduct committed by an employee initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employee and on Conclusion of the departmental enquiry proceedings If the allegations leveled against the employees are proved, the employee concerned should be awarded punishment as provided under the service Rules governing the employee including dismissal.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete reply by the PIO Page 1 of 3 Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Information are exempted under 8(1) (j) under RTI Act and the PIO has provided complete information to the appellant.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Incomplete information provided by the PIO and FAA as well.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Ved Vrat;
Respondent: Mr. C. S. Rajani, Manager (Law) on behalf of Mr. R. K. Lenka, PIO & Deputy zonal Manager;
The PIO has denied information relating to query 1 claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has sought information regarding disciplinary action taken against certain employees and the PIO had denied this information claiming that it is personal information and disclosure of this would be unwarranted intrusion on the privacy of an individual.
Under Section 8 (1) (j) information which has been exempted is defined as: "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 unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:"
To qualify for this exemption the information must satisfy the following criteria:
1. It must be personal information.
Words in a law should normally be given the meanings given in common language. In common language we would ascribe the adjective 'personal' to an attribute which applies to an individual and not to an Institution or a Corporate. From this it flows that 'personal' cannot be related to Institutions, organisations or corporates. Hence Section 8 (1) (j) cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organisations or corporates.
The phrase 'disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest' means that the information must have been given in the course of a Public activity.
Various Public authorities in performing their functions routinely ask for 'personal' information from Citizens, and this is clearly a public activity. When a person applies for a job, or gives information about himself to a Public authority as an employee, or asks for a permission, licence or authorisation, all these are public activities. Also when a Citizen provides information in discharge of a statutory obligation this too is a public activity.
We can also look at this from another aspect. The State has no right to invade the privacy of an individual. There are some extraordinary situations where the State may be allowed to invade the privacy of a Citizen. In those circumstances special provisions of the law apply;- usually with certain safeguards. Therefore where the State routinely obtains information from Citizens, this information is in relationship to a public activity and will not be an intrusion on privacy.
Certain human rights such as liberty, freedom of expression or right to life are universal and therefore would apply uniformly to all human beings worldwide. However, the concept of 'privacy' is a cultural notion, related to social norms, and different societies would look at these differently. Therefore referring to the UK Data protection act or the laws of other countries to define 'privacy' cannot be considered a valid exercise to constrain the Citizen's fundamental Right to Information in India. Parliament has not codified the right to privacy so far, hence in balancing the Right to Information of Citizens and the individual's Right to Privacy the Citizen's Right to Information would be given greater weightage. The Supreme Court of India has ruled that Citizens have a right to know about charges against candidates for Page 2 of 3 elections as well as details of their assets, since they desire to offer themselves for public service. It is obvious then that those who are public servants cannot claim exemption from disclosure of charges against them or details of their assets. Given our dismal record of misgovernance and rampant corruption which colludes to deny Citizens their essential rights and dignity, it is in the fitness of things that the Citizen's Right to Information is given greater primacy with regard to privacy. Parliament intended that PIOs should use this exemption very rarely and narrowly. However, it realized that there may be a temptation by PIOs to use it very widely, and hence it added a proviso as a test for PIOs to this exemption stating, 'Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.' Public servants have been used to giving information to Parliament and State Legislatures, and it would be very rarely that there would be reluctance in parting with any information when a Parliamentary question is asked. By this proviso, Parliament recognized the primacy to the individual citizen, who lends it legitimacy. Besides it wanted all PIOs to be aware that Parliament itself derives its legitimacy from the citizen who is therefore entitled to the same information.
The Commission asked the PIO if she would deny this information to the Parliament or Legislature. She states that she would not deny this information to Parliament or Legislature. In view of this the Commission does not uphold the exemption claimed by the PIO under Section 8(1)(j).
The PIO has brought the information with her which she is providing to the Appellant before the Commission.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information has been provided. This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 02 April 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG) Page 3 of 3