Central Information Commission
Basanti Kumari vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 20 February, 2024
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/UTOCH/A/2023/161066
Basanti Kumari .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the DSP/Hqrs cum
CPIO, Accounts & Procurement,
Addl. Deluxe Building, Sector
9, Chandigarh - 160009 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09-02-2024
Date of Decision : 19-02-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17-10-2022
CPIO replied on : 01-11-2022
First appeal filed on : 18-11-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 12-12-2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 27-12-2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.10.2022 seeking the following information:1
"(a) That the applicant has filed a complaint GP, dated 30.08.2022 bearing no. C- 1621/ R/I
(i) Kindly provide the status of the above said complaint.
(ii) Kindly provide Action Taken report on the inquiry conducted by the competent authority against constable Sachin, Belt No.-416/ CP and lady constable Pooja who is posted at women police station sector 17, Chandigarh to the undersigned.
(iii) Whether during the enquiry conducted by the competent authority any CDR's of constable Sachin, Belt No.-416/ CP, mobile no. 9870503771 and lady constable Pooja mobile no. 6283473388 were obtained, including any mobile number which was used by both or otherwise. If yes kindly provide copy of the CDR's and mobile numbers obtained during inquiry of the above-mentioned complaint.
(iv) Whether the CDR's as obtained above establishes that constable Sachin and Lady Constable Pooja were in constant touch with each other w.e.f. dated 18.07.2021.
(b) That a Women Constable Pooja who is posted at Women police station sector 17, Chandigarh had got a Police Complaint registered against Constable Sachin No.- 416/CP, alleging commission of Rape and threat vide Police Complaint No.14561/2021, dated 07.07.2021 in P.S. Mani Majra, Chandigarh or any competent higher authority.
(i) Kindly provide the information regarding the status of the complaint.
(ii) Kindly provide Action Taken report along with the copy of the complaint to the undersigned.
(iii) Whether during inquiry of the above said complaint any CDR details of mobile number of Constable Sachin and Women Constable Pooja were obtained by the enquiry officer or not? If yes? Please provide the copy of the CDR's to the undersigned.
(c) Kindly provide parentage and details of the family as mentioned at the time of the joining service by Constable Sachin No.-416/CP, i.e. Name of the father, date of birth of the father and name of the mother, date of birth of mother.
(d) Kindly provide details of reason/ basis which leave was sanctioned to constable Sachin No.- 416/CP on 08.12.2021.
(i) If leave was applied to attend his own marriage, then Kindly provide copy of the marriage card, as submitted by him with the department for availing leave.2
(e) Whether constable Sachin No.-416/CP has intimated to the department that his marriage was postponed or not? If yes kindly provide copy of the written intimation submitted with the department along with the reason of postponement of his marriage.
(f) Weather constable Sachin No.-416/ CP has nominated undersigned in the department as his wife after my marriage to him or not? If yes? Kindly provide copy of the intimation submitted with the department.
(g) What is the present Salary structure of constable Sachin No.- 416/CP.?
Kindly provide the copy of the salary certificate."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 01.11.2022 stating as under:
"The requisite Information pertaining to Sachin Kumar No. 416/CP, is the third party information and has not made any bonafide public interest. The discloser of such information would cause unwanted invasive of privacy of the individual. Moreover, official has given in writing not to supply his personal information to anyone. Hence, the information cannot be provided being third party information under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.11.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 12.12.2022, held as under:-
"The appellant is not satisfied with the information supplied to her, has filled instant appeal to the undersigned being First Appellate Authority w.r.t. DSP- cum- CPIO/Accounts and CPIO/Establishment and also to the Senior Superintendent of Police, UT being First Appellate Authority w.r.t. DSP-cum- CPIO/East and CPIO/PHQ (CRU Branch) aggrieving that the CPIO has failed to supply the requisite information.
The comments of DSP-cum-CPIO/Accounts and CPIO/Establishment have been called for. I have gone through the RTI appeal, vis-a-vis facts of the RTI application & comments by the CPIOs. The appellant, through her RTI application, had sought information in 07 points "i.e. from a to g", related to a complaint filed by her bearing No. C- 1621/R/IGP dated 30.08.2022 and information related to Constable Sachin No. 416/CP. The information sought by the appellant, supplied by the CPIOs, grievance of the appellant and the order/decision of the undersigned being first appellate authority is given below:-3
Information Information provided Grievances Decision sought in RTI by CPIOs raised in application First Appeal Supply the The requisite Kindly The undersigned found that out of information on information relates to supply 07 points of RTI application CPIO/ following third party i.e. Establishment has dealt 04 points i.e. points:- Constable Sachin No. (c, d, e & f) and CPIO/Accounts has Point No. C 416/CP and the third dealt only 01 point i.e. g. However, Kindly provide party has given in on 28.10.2022Constable Sachin No. parentage and writing that his 416/CP has given in written that his details of the personal information credentials may not be shared with family as cannot be disclosed the applicant.
mentioned at the
time of the to the applicant. The
joining service disclosure of such In the view of the above, the
by Constable information no undersigned being First
Sachin No. relationship to any AppellateAuthority/Establishmentand
416/CP i.e. public activity or
Accounts is agree with the reply
Name of the interest, or which
submitted by the CPIOs.
father, date of would cause
birth of the unwarranted invasion Decision/reply on points related to
father and name of the privacy of the CPIO/HQs (CRU) i.e. a and b will be
of the mother, individual. Hence, the provided by the Senior
date of birth of requisite information Superintendent of Police, UT being
mother. denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the First Appellate Authority w.r.t.
Point No. D the RTI Act 2005. CPIO/HQs.
Kindly provide (Reply of details of CPIO/Establishment) reason/basis which leave was sanctioned to constable Sachin No. 416/CP on 08.12.2021. (i) If leave was applied to attend his own marriage then kindly provide copy of the marriage card, as submitted by him with the department for availing leave. Point No. E Whether constable Sachin No. 416/CP has 4 intimated to the department that his marriage was postponed or not? If yes kindly provide copy of the written intimation submitted with the department along with the reason of postponement of his marriage. Point No. F Whether constable Sachin No. 416/CP has nominated undersigned in the department as his wife after the marriage to him or not? If yes? kindly provide copy of the intimation submitted with the department. Point No. G The requisite What is the information pertains present Salary to Const Sachin structure of Kumar No. 416/CP is Constable the third party Sachin No. information and has 416/CP? Kindly not made any provide the copy bonafide public of salary interest. The certificate disclosure of such information no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. Hence, the requisite information denied u/s 8(1)(j) of 5 RTI Act 2005. (Reply of CPIO/Accounts) "
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Respondent: 1. Ravinder Kumar, Head Constable on Behalf Of CPIO
2. Davender Singh Sub-Inspector Balvinder Singh, On Behalf DSP Women Cell CPIO
3. Naveen Kumar Clerk, On Behalf, CPIO from Establishment
4. Sachin, Constable Written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 07.02.2024. Relevant extract is reproduced here:
"A notice vide no. CIC/UTOCH/A/2023/161066 dt. 29.01.2024 for hearing of second appeal filed by Ms. Basanti Kumari R/o M-34, G No. 4 New Mahavir Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi has been received in the office of undersigned through CPIO/PHQ vide no. R-100/CPIO/HQ/RTI-2024 Dt. 05.02.2024. In this regard it is submitted that RTI application of Ms. Basanti Kumari (present applicant) was received in the office of undersigned on 18.10.2022 through Incharge, Public Window (PHQ)-cum-CAPIO/PHQ vide office No.905/RTI/CAPIO(PHQ)/UT/PWS Dt. 17.10.2022, for supplying the information sought under RTI Act, 2005 regarding her complaint bearing no. C- 1621/R/IGP, dt. 30.08.2022, and others. Since inquiry into the above said complaint bearing no. C- 1621/R/IGP, dt. 30.08.2022 was conducted by the undersigned and the inquiry report was submitted to senior officers and rest of the information sought be the appellant was not related to this unit, so the RTI application, in original, had been transferred to the CPIO/PHQ, Sec-9,Chd. u/s 6(3) of RTI Act for supplying the information to the concerned. A copy for information about transferring the RTI application had also been sent to the applicant/appellant Basanti Kumari Vide no. RTI-281'A 6 Dt.19.10.2022. So, appropriate reply of RTI application has been given by the undersigned."
Appellant did not appear to contest her case despite service of hearing notice.
The Respondent submitted that the requisite Information pertaining to Sachin Kumar No. 416/CP, is the third-party information and has not made any bonafide public interest. The disclosure of such information would cause unwanted invasion of privacy of the individual. Moreover, official has objected to supplying his personal information to anyone. Hence, the information cannot be provided being third party information under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
The Commission based upon perusal of facts on record observes that the Respondent has appropriately denied the personal records of the third party to the Appellant which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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 Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held: "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 7 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..."
Further, objection raised by the third-party against the disclosure of his name when Respondents sought his consent under Section 11 of the RTI Act do not leave any scope of intervention of the Commission. Having observed as above, no relief can be granted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयुक्त) Date 19-02-2024 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर्सत्यानपर्प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011-26181827 Date 8