Central Information Commission
Shri Deepak Agnihotri vs O/O The Deputy Commissioner Of Police on 7 October, 2009
Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00901-SM dated 16.02.2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 7 October 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri Deepak Agnihotri,
95A/GH 10, Sunder Apartments,
Outer Ring Road,
Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi - 110 087.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, O/o the Deputy Commissioner of
Police, 1st Floor, P.S. Rajouri Garden,
West District, Delhi.
The Appellant was represented by Shri Agnihotri.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri S.K. Kapoor, ACP, was present.
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated February 16, 2008, requested the CPIO for the certified copies of the DD No. 19A dated February 16, 2008 and the complaint/statement of Smt. Namita Kapoor of the same date. The CPIO replied on March 11, 2008 and while providing a copy of the DD No.19A refused to provide a copy of the complaint claiming that it concerned a third party. The Appellant moved the Appellate Authority against the denial of the copy of the complaint in an appeal dated March 17, 2008. The Appellate Authority disposed off the appeal in his order dated April 8, 2008 and directed the CPIO to issue a notice under Section 11 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act to Smt. Kapoor to seek her consent for disclosure of the information. It appears Smt. Kapoor objected to the disclosure of her statement and, therefore, a copy of the statement was never provided to the Appellant. He has now come before the CIC in second appeal against this.
3. During the hearing, the Appellant was represented by his father while the Respondent was present in person. We heard their submissions. During the hearing, the Appellant not only furnished his written arguments on the CIC/WB/A/2008/00901-SM case, he also produced a photocopy of the said statement obtained through his personal efforts. This clearly shows that citizens can access documents otherwise being denied under the Right to Information (RTI) Act through clandestine methods. The Police Commissioner needs to look into this case in particular and find out how a copy of the statement which had been denied by the CPIO and the Appellate Authority found its way into the hands of the Appellant.
4. Now that the Appellant has already managed to get a photocopy of the statement, he argued that he was no longer interested in that particular information. He submitted that he would like the Central Information Commission to penalise the CPIO under Section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act for having denied the information in the first place.
5. The Respondent showed us the original statement of Smt. Kapoor. On carefully perusing that statement, we found references having been made to another individual, a lady, and we think that the disclosure of this statement can cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of at least that individual. Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act clearly provides that any information the disclosure of which can lead to unwarranted invasion of the privacy of any individual would be exempt from disclosure unless such disclosure would serve a larger public interest. Obviously, in this case, the Appellant has not made out any case to show that the disclosure of the statement would serve a larger public interest. In view of this, even if the Appellant has already managed to get a copy of the statement, we do not see how this statement can be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
6. We also do not agree with the request of the Appellant that the CPIO needs to be penalised for the position he took. In the judgment of the CPIO, the statement being a third party information was not to be disclosed. It is true that he did not cite an appropriate provision of the Right to Information (RTI) Act in support of his decision. It appears this must be due CIC/WB/A/2008/00901-SM to his ignorance about the provisions of this law. For this alone, he cannot be penalised under Section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed off.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar CIC/WB/A/2008/00901-SM