Central Information Commission
Gurmit Singh vs Ncc on 17 February, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/NACAC/C/2018/145463
Gurmit Singh .... िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
NCC Director,
Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh & Chandigarh,
Kendriya Sadan,
5th Floor, Sector - 9 A,
Chandigarh - 160009. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
RTI application filed on : 19/02/2018
CPIO replied on : 28/02/2018
First appeal filed on : 08/03/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 28/03/2018
Complaint dated : 15/07/2018
Date of Hearing : 13/02/2020
Date of Decision : 13/02/2020
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
Information sought:
The Complainant sought to know to which cadet the following two certificates has been issued i.e. (1) Certificate no. PB/SD/83/48876 PHH/B.CERT/ARMY/85/3317 and (2) PBGS/84/17308PHH/B.CERT/GIRLS/37/3618 alongwith its photocopy.
Grounds for the Complaint:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.1
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present and represented by Abhinav Mishra, Advocate in person.
Respondent: Gp. Capt. S.K. Gupta, Director & CPIO, NCC Directorate, Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh & Chandigarh, Chandigarh present through VC.
Advocate of the Complainant stated that information sought has been wrongly denied by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Upon the instance of the Commission, CPIO submitted that information sought by the Complainant pertains to third party and the disclosure of the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third party, hence, it was denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act on 19.02.2018.
In addition, CPIO further submitted that the copy of the certificate sought by the Compainant in the instant RTI Application pertains to the year 1983-1984 and that the same has been weeded out under Record Retention Schedule. He further submitted that as per para 38(g) of the SNCCO-2015 issued by the Headquarter, Directorate General of NCC wherein "Proper year wise records of all the cadets who qualify in examination will be retained for at least 10 years" and subsequent to that they are weeded out.
Upon the instance of the Commission, CPIO submitted that he has already submitted the certified true copy of Para 38(g) of the SNCCO-2015 issued by the Headquarter, Directorate General of NCC for the perusal of the Commission on 06.02.2020 and the copy of the same was also sent to the Complainant.
Complainant interjected to state that he has not received any copy of the document as averred by the CPIO.
Advocate of the Complainant interjected to produce copies of two previous orders of the Commission in the matter of Shailendra Kumar Singh v. PIO, EPFO dated 08.06.2018; Mohd Naushaduddin Vs. PIO, CBSE, Ajmer dated 17.01.2017 alongwith a copy of the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High court in the matter of Vijay Dheer Vs. State Information Commission dated 04.03.2013 for perusal of the Commission. He further stated that the in the light of the dictum in the aforementioned orders, the information and document sought in 2 File No : CIC/NACAC/C/2018/145463 the instant RTI Application to the extent falls under the domain of larger public interest, therefore, the veil of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act would not be applicable in the instant matter.
Complainant further prayed to treat the instant complaint as Second Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act.
Decision Commission accepts the prayer of the Complainant to treat the instant complaint as Second Appeal.
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of the proceedings during hearing observes that the information sought by the Appellant in the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of a third party which is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has also not pleaded any element of larger public interest in the instant matter.
In view of the above, Commission finds it pivotal to cite observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a landmark case, wherein the aspect of "personal information" has been explained in a highly structured manner. In this regard, Commission relies upon the recent judgment of 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. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
"...59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of 3 privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
[Emphasis Supplied] Adverting to the supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case has categorized a variety of aspects that comes under the purview of "personal information" which are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
In view of the foregoing, Commission is of a considered opinion that prima facie the information sought in the instant RTI Application pertains to Certificates of NCC Cadet who are third party(s) and the same is exempt from disclosure as per the ratio laid down in the aforementioned dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Further, on the basis of the proceedings during hearing as well as considering the submissions of the CPIO, Commission observes that since the subject-matter of the instant RTI Application i.e., Certificates of NCC Cadets as sought in the instant RTI Application has already been weeded out, the argument of the Advocate of Complainant/Appellant with respect to disclosure of information on the ground of large public interest becomes futile. Hence, Commission finds no merit in considering the aforesaid aspect of the argument averred by the Advocate of the Complainant/Appellant.
In view of the foregoing, Commission directs the CPIO to provide certified true copy of para 38(g) of the SNCCO-2015 issued by the Headquarter, Directorate General, which was sent to the Commission on 06.02.2020 along with its cover letter, to the Appellant free of cost.
Commission in order to allay the apprehension of the Complainant/Appellant, further directs the CPIO to file an appropriate affidavit stating that the relevant document/information as sought in the instant RTI Application has been weeded out. The affidavit should be sent by the CPIO to the Commission with its copy duly endorsed to the Appellant.
The aforementioned directions of the Commission shall be complied within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance report of the same to be sent to the Commission by the CPIO.
4File No : CIC/NACAC/C/2018/145463 The Complaint/Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा )
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Haro Prasad Sen
Dy. Registrar
011-26106140 / [email protected]
हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
5