Central Information Commission
Gauraw Lakshmi vs Canara Bank on 11 July, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CANBK/A/2023/613728
Gauraw Lakshmi ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Canara Bank,
Bengaluru ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 06.12.2022 FA : 23.01.2023 SA : Nil
CPIO : 04.01.2023 FAO : Not on record Hearing : 08.07.2024
Date of Decision: 10.07.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Your Staff Ranjeet Kumar has attended the interview on 16.07.2022 of Assistant Professor (Management) Advt. no-78\2014 So you are requested to inform us whether he has taken any prior permission or NOC for this exam/interview or not?Page 1 of 4
If yes then please provide a copy of NOC issued to Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Staff no/Employee ID-59**16 for attending the interview of Assistant Professor BPSC Management subject Advt. no 78/2014.
I am enclosing the list of selected candidates for the interview and interview date for your kind confirmation and action.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"The information sought pertains to third party and disclosure of which may cause unwarranted invasion on the privacy of the individual. Hence, the same is exempted under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.01.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The order of FAA, if any, is not on the record of the commission.
4. Due to non-receipt of any order from the First Appellate Authority, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
5. The appellant remained present through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Divisional Manager attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the information has been wrongly denied to her. She claimed that BPSC has already disclosed similar information to her.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia denied the appellant's request for information on the grounds that the details sought pertain to a third party, specifically concerning Mr. Ranjeet Kumar's NOC for attending an interview. Under the RTI Act, 2005, information that relates to a third party and involves personal details is protected under Section 8(1)(j), which exempts disclosure if it would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy unless a larger public interest is demonstrated. The Respondent maintained that Page 2 of 4 revealing such information would violate Mr. Ranjeet Kumar's privacy rights, and there was no compelling public interest presented by the appellant to justify such disclosure.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the appellant had sought information about whether Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, an employee of Canara Bank, had obtained prior permission or a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for attending an interview for the position of Assistant Professor (Management), as advertised by BPSC. The PIO, in his response, denied the information, citing it as third-party information. The Commission notes that the information sought pertains to a third party (Mr. Ranjeet Kumar) and involves personal details such as obtaining a NOC for attending an interview. The appellant has not demonstrated how the disclosure of this third-party information would serve a larger public interest that outweighs the invasion of privacy.
In this regard, the attention of the parties is drawn towards a judgment of 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 Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & amp; 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 Page 3 of 4 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..."
The Commission further observes that the appellant has argued that another department has previously disclosed similar information. However, the mistake of another department cannot compel the CPIO of Canara Bank to disclose information that is barred under the RTI Act.
9. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission upholds the decision of the Respondent. The information sought by the appellant is indeed third-party information and is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनां क/Date: 10.07.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कनल एस एस िछकारा ($रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Canara Bank, DM & CPIO, RIA Section, Head Office (Annex), Jeevan Prakash Building, 113, J. C. Road, Bengaluru-560002
2. Gauraw Lakshmi Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)