Central Information Commission
Aparna Chakraborty vs Department Of Posts on 3 July, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/BS/A/2016/001111
Aparna Chakraborty v. PIO, Department of Posts
RTI : 13.01.2016
FAO : 14.03.2016
Second Appeal : 13.04.2016
Hearing : 20.06.2017
Appellant : Absent
Public Authority : Ms. Devyani Mitra, ASP
Decided On : 03.07.2017
FINAL ORDER
FACTS:
1. The appellant sought for information whether her name or her mother's name has been incorporated as nominee in the Service Book of her father i.e. Mr. Arti Bejoy Chakraborty, and details of his grade pay. The CPIO replied on 09- 02-2016 not providing the information. The FAA on 14-03-2016 upheld that denial. The appellant approaches the Commission.
Decision :
2. The officer stated that the appellant had been communicated the grade pay of her father being Rs. 4600 and basic pay being Rs. 16880. However he contended that nominee's name is third party information and hence denied.
3. The respondent authority says that the information falls under section 11 of RTI Act. If CPIO sincerely felt that it was third party information why he did not consult the father of the appellant under Section 11(1)? He might have agreed to give that information.
4. Even if father objects to disclosure, the CPIO is expected to consider the question of public interest or possibility of unwarranted invasion of privacy of the father. The name of spouse and children generally forms part of private information. But nominating a person to receive the retirement benefits or CIC/BS/A/2016/001111 Page 1 deposits or insurance amount is different. The public servant or depositor needs to nominate a person, who could be anyone. Generally persons nominate wife or first son or first daughter to receive such amount. As per law the receiver is not the beneficiary. Nominating someone does not mean that public servant has transferred all his benefits at retirement to that person. Even if the wife was nominee, and she received the amount after the demise of the employee, she will not become absolute owner of the entire amount, but becomes trustee to receive and hold the property for giving to real heirs of the deceased person. Wife is an heir according to law along with others like mother and progeny. She can get her share along with others as per law. A wife cannot get anything more than what she is entitled, simply because she was nominated. The position is similar in case of daughter or son being named as nominees. Suppose the employee nominates a friend or a relative other than family members, such nominee will not become absolute owner of that amount. He holds it as a trustee for the real beneficiary. The common understanding that nominee is the full owner of the property is not legally correct. Only when they gift away the amount or dispose it of through a will the ownership of such benefit changes, otherwise the amount remains a property of the employee and heirs can have a right to share it as per law, as the demise of the property owner. The employee will remain the sole owner of this amount of money whether he nominates any person or not.
5. The nomination is only a convenience for the employer to discharge him from the liability of payment. In the absence of nominee, the employer will have a duty to find real heirs and distribute among them. The rules and regulations of the public office make it mandatory for the employee to nominate somebody whenever he enters service, or takes insurance or makes a deposit for fixed period of time. If that is disclosed whose privacy will be invaded?
6. Looking at the issue from the point of view of the appellant, who is the daughter of the person, whose information she was seeking. A daughter has a right over the property of the father and father has a duty to maintain her till she is married. Her entitlement to share the property will not diminish because of marriage, as per the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005, where married daughter's right to succession was recognized. As a daughter she has a right to information as well regarding who the father nominated. Assuming that CIC/BS/A/2016/001111 Page 2 there is a family dispute between her mother and father, still the information about nomination by father will be relevant because both of them are heirs, who have a right of succession. They also have a right to be maintained by the father, which creates a legal interest.
Section 125 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.
(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or
(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means.
7. It is the ethical duty of the public servant to maintain the family. As per the MHA OM No. 25/16/59-Ests.(A), dated 01.09.1959, he should properly maintain his family. The Office Memorandum says:
(5) Conduct of Government Servant in relation to the proper maintenance of his family Instances of failure of Government servants to look after the proper maintenance of their families have come to Government's notice. It has been suggested that a provision may be made in the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955, to enable Government to take action against those Government servants who do not look after their families properly.
2. The question has been examined and it has been decided that it will not be possible to make such a provision in the Conduct Rules as it would entail administrative difficulties in implementing and enforcing it. However, a Government servant is expected to maintain a responsible and decent standard of conduct in his private life and not bring discredit to his service by his misdemeanours. In cases where a Government servant is reported to have acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant as for instance, by neglecting his wife and family, departmental action can be taken against him on that score without invoking any of the Conduct Rules. In this connection, a reference is invited to Rule 13 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 CIC/BS/A/2016/001111 Page 3 (now Rule 11) which specifies the nature of penalties that may, for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed on a Government servant. It has been held that neglect by a Government servant of his wife and family in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant may be regarded as a good and sufficient reason to justify action being taken against him under this rule.
3. It should, however, be noted that in such cases the party affected has a legal right to claim maintenance. If any legal proceedings in this behalf should be pending in a court of law, it would not be correct for Government to take action against the Government servant on this ground as such action may be construed by the court to amount to contempt.
8. As the rights and duties are involved, their enforcement becomes matter of public interest and to advance the same, one can get the information relevant for the purpose. The Civil Conduct (Service) Rules as mentioned above mandate the conduct, breach of which could lead to disciplinary action.
9. Question whether she is entitled to maintenance or not will be decided by the appropriate court according to law. Here the issue is whether information about nominee is to be disclosed or not. The daughter appellant is interested in knowing whether her mother was declared as nominee, or her name was shown as nominee. The question is straight and simple. If the CPIO says yes or no, based on the entry in service book, he is not invading the privacy of the officer.
10. The pathetic part is that the CPIO has just rejected the request quoting Sections of RTI Act stating it is third party information completely ignoring conditions under which it could be invoked and provisos. The CPIO has ignored the fact that the appellant is the daughter of Mr. Arti Bejoy Chakraborty.
11. Though certain documents like annual returns of assets, investments, IT returns etc. were earlier declared as private/ personal or third party information, the law changed later. Now the annual return of assets of employees is no more a third party or private information. They are supposed to disclose as per the law. Hence they cannot even object to disclosure. Investments and IT returns of spouses cannot be hidden in cases of maintenance and other domestic disputes as per the judgment of Delhi High Court. as far as spouses are concerned such information is neither private nor personal nor third party information between them. The field of privacy as recognized by RTI act gets reduced in cases of information related to nomination which is directly linked to parents, spouse or CIC/BS/A/2016/001111 Page 4 children. The wife or daughter has a right to know whose name the husband cited as nominee.
12. It is not known whether CPIO doubted the claim that appellant was daughter of the employee. If he has a reasonable doubt about the claim, he should have verified either with the applicant or her father. The CPIO knew about Section 11 but did not follow it.
The castle principle and Public Interest test
13. The principle of domestic sanctuary is expressed in the maxium domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium (= one's house is the safest refuge, or a man's house is his castle). But there is a public interest exception to this principle of privacy. Where a crime is committed, or misconduct is being investigated the privacy has no place. There are some qualified exceptions to the principle of privacy, in case of a qualified exception; the public authority must weigh the public interest in maintaining the exemption against the public interest in disclosure. This is known as the public interest test.
14. A public authority can only withhold the information if the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The public interest here means the public good, not what is of interest to the public, and not the private interests of the requester.
15. There will always be a general public interest in transparency. It is implicit that citizens in a representative democracy have a right to seek toparticipate in and influence the processes of government decision-making and policy formulation on any issue of concern to them. The importance of RTI legislation is that it provides the means for a person to have access to knowledge and information that will assist a more meaningful and effective exercise of that right. It is more complex process to identify the public interests in disclosure and non-disclosure of the particular information that has been requested. It is an amorphous concept, which cannot be typically defined in access to information legislation. The flexibility is deliberate, because public interest will change over time and according to circumstances of each situation. A classic statement is that the categories of public interest are not closed. The authority should consider any public interests that would be served by disclosing the information.
CIC/BS/A/2016/001111 Page 5 If there is a plausible suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of the public authority, this may create a public interest in disclosure. And even where this is not the case, there is a public interest in releasing information to provide a full picture.
16. Thus, for example, there is a public interest in transparency and accountability, to promote public understanding and to safeguard democratic processes. There is a public interest in good decision-making by public bodies, in upholding standards of integrity, in ensuring justice and fair treatment for all, in securing the best use of public resources and in ensuring fair commercial competition in a mixed economy. "The public interest is a term embracing matters, among others, of standards of human conduct and of the functioning of government and government instrumentalities tacitly accepted or acknowledged to be for the good order of society and for the wellbeing of its members. The interest is therefore the interest of the public as distinct from the interest of an individual". (Sinclair v Mining Warden at Maryborough (1975) 132 CLR 473 by Barwick CJ) For instance, the information concerning possible misconduct in public office is a matter of public interest (Decision of Australian Commonwealth AAT). Information permitting an applicant to pursue a private prosecution was considered by New Zealand Ombudsmen as that of public interest.
17. In carrying out the public interest test, the authority should consider the arguments in favour of disclosing the information and those in favour of maintaining the exemption. The authority should try to do this objectively, recognising that there are always arguments to be made on both sides. It may be helpful for the authority to draw up a list showing the arguments it is considering on both sides; this will help when it comes to assessing the relative weight of the arguments.
What is public interest?
18. In various decisions, it has been held that the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. Public interest, according to the Random House Dictionary, is "the welfare or well- being of the general public; commonwealth, or appeal or relevance to the general populace: a news story of public interest." Mr Ho argues that the public interest must be assessed impartially and, therefore, defines the public interest CIC/BS/A/2016/001111 Page 6 as the "ex ante welfare of the representative individual." (Ho, Lok Sang, Public Policy and the Public Interest, Routledge, 2011) Another definition of public interest is: Welfare of the general public (in contrast to the selfish interest of a person, group, or firm) in which the whole society has a stake and which warrants recognition, promotion, and protection by the government and its agencies. It is approximated by comparing expected gains and potential costs or losses associated with a decision, policy, program, or project. (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/public-interest.html)
19. Public interest means anything affecting the rights, health, or finances of the public at large. Public interest is a common concern among citizens in the management and affairs of local, state, and national government. It does not mean mere curiosity but is a broad term that refers to the body politic and the public wealth. A public utility is regulated in the public interest because private individuals rely on such a company for vital services. (West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc.)
20. Under a thought experiment, by assuming that there is an equal chance for one to be anyone in society and, thus, could benefit or suffer from a change, the public interest is by definition enhanced whenever that change is preferred to the status quo ex ante. This approach is "ex ante", in the sense that the change is not evaluated after the fact but assessed before the fact without knowing whether one would actually benefit or suffer from it. A thought experiment (German: Gedankenexperiment, [Perkowitz, Sidney (February 12, 2010). "Gedankenexperiment". Encyclopædia Britannica Online] Gedanken experiment or Gedankenerfahrung [Robert Brown, James (August 12, 2014) "Thought Experiments". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) considers some hypothesis, theory, or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences. Given the structure of the experiment, it may not be possible to perform it, and even if it could be performed, there need not be an intention to perform it. The common goal of a thought experiment is to explore the potential consequences of the principle in question: "A thought experiment is a device with which one performs an intentional, structured process of intellectual deliberation in order to speculate, within a specifiable problem domain, about potential consequents (or antecedents) for a designated antecedent (or consequent)" (Yeates, 2004, p. 150).
CIC/BS/A/2016/001111 Page 7
21. John Stuart Mill, the most influential English-speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century, in his letter to George Grote, explained that "human happiness, even one's own, is in general more successfully pursued by acting on general rules, than by measuring the consequences of each act; and this is still more the case with the general happiness, since any other plan would not only leave everybody uncertain what to expect, but would involve perpetual quarrelling..." (Francis E. Mineka and Dwight N. Lindley (ed.), The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XIV - The Later Letters of John Stuart Mill 1849-1873 Part I, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972, Vol. XV, p. 762, 1862.)
22. Public interest is 'general happiness' to be identified in the context of the case. This matches to our ancient dictum 'Bahujana sukhaya bahujana hitaya cha (= "for the happiness of the many, for the welfare of the many") enunciated in the Rigveda in Sanskrit [Coleman 1973, p. 27]. Vishnugupta, (Chanakya or Kautilya) the architect of the Mauryan Empire in the Fourth century BC, theorized this dictum further into a treatise called "Kautilya's Arthashastra" (a treatise on Public Administration the first such document in India) His approach enshrined the "State as an institutional necessity for human advancement" and then prescribed in details all the actions to be taken by the ruler of the state. His elaboration of the dictum "bahujan sukhaya bahujan hitaya" was interpreted with the following theory in a Sanskrit shloka:
"Praja sukhe sukham rajyaha prajanamcha hitehitam, Natma priyyam hitam rajanaha prajanam cha hitam priyam".
In English it means: In the happiness of his public rests the king's happiness, in their welfare his welfare. He shall not consider as good only that which pleases him but treat as beneficial to him whatever pleases his public. ["Governance in Classic India" (PDF). Transparency India organization. p. 13. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 September 2013] The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales argues that applying a detailed definition is likely to result in unintended consequences, [in Acting in the Public Interest (2012)]. Instead, each circumstance needs to be assessed based on criteria such as the relevant public, wants, and constraints. The key to assessing any public interest decision is transparency of the decision-making process, including balancing competing interests.
CIC/BS/A/2016/001111 Page 8
23. Louis Brandeis, before becoming a U.S. Supreme Court justice incorporated advocacy for the interests of the general public into his legal practice and he has built upon this tradition of public interest law. In a celebrated 1905 speech, Brandeis decried the legal profession, complaining that "able lawyers have to a large extent allowed themselves to become adjuncts of great corporations and have neglected their obligation to use their powers for the protection of the people." [Edwin Rekosh, et al.,ed. "Pursuing the Public Interest, A Handbook for Legal Professionals and Activists"
(http://www.pilnet.org/component/docman/doc_download/35-pursuing-the- public-interest-a-handbook-for-legal.html); Scott L. Cummings, The Politics of Pro Bono, 52 UCLA L. Rev. 1, 13-14(2004)] Public interest lawyers are those, who, instead of representing powerful economic interests, chose to be advocates for otherwise underrepresented individuals.
24. The term has grown, however, to encompass a broader range of activities of lawyers and non-lawyers working toward a multitude of objectives, including civil rights, civil liberties, women's rights, consumer rights, environmental protection, and so on. Nevertheless, a common denominator for public interest lawyers in the United States and in a growing number of countries remains the ethic of "fighting for the little guy"--that is, representing the underrepresented and vulnerable segments of society. (Scott L. Cummings & Ingrid V. Eagly, After Public Interest Law, NWU L. Rev. 1251, 1251-1259, 2075-2077(2006))
25. In the context of journalism "public interest" is a possible justification for the use of subterfuge or covert activities, for example, that would otherwise be an intrusion of privacy if not actually against the law. The journalist is faced with a number of ethical questions: does the intended end justify the means? Is it right or wrong to do this? The Press Complaints Commission code defines the public interest as including but not confined to detecting and exposing crime, or serious impropriety; protecting public health and safety and preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation. David Leigh, the Guardian's chief investigations editor, suggests that a useful addition to the code would be: "Information is in the public interest if it assists in the proper functioning of a democracy." This is an idea reflected in the BBC's editorial guidelines, which state the public interest includes, "...
CIC/BS/A/2016/001111 Page 9 disclosing information that assists people to better comprehend or make decisions on matters of public importance".
26. According to Andrew Sparrow, the Guardian's award-winning blogger, "we should be willing to fight the public-interest battle on a case-by-case basis. For example, 50 years ago it was assumed that there was a public interest in knowing that an MP was gay, but little or no public interest in whether he drove home drunk, hit his wife or furnished his house using wood from non-sustainable sources. Now, obviously, it's the other way round. Society does - and should - constantly redefine what the public interest entails and journalism should be part of that." (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/20/open- door-definition-public-interest) Public purpose and public interest
27. Our Supreme Court explained the terms pubic purpose and public interest in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (2012) 13 SCC 611) saying "the statutory exemption provided under Section 8 of the RTI Act is the rule and only in exceptional circumstances of larger public interest the information would be disclosed. It was also held that 'public purpose' needs to be interpreted in the strict sense and public interest has to be construed keeping in mind the balance between right to privacy and right to information. The apex court said:
22. "The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act.
The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs 2). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]
23. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to the circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs CIC/BS/A/2016/001111 Page 10 unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision. Certain matters, particularly in relation to appointment, are required to be dealt with great confidentiality."
28. The Delhi High Court in UPSC vs. R.K. Jain, W.P. (C) No. 1243 of 2011, in its decision dated 13.7.2012, said:
"'The second half of the first part of clause (j) of Section 8(1) shows that when personal information in respect of a person is sought, the authority concerned shall weigh the competing claims i.e., the claim for the protection of personal information of the concerned person on the one hand, and the claim of public interest on the other, and if "public interest" justifies disclosure, i.e., the public interest outweighs the need for protection of personal information, the concerned authority shall disclose the information."
29. The Supreme Court explained determination of larger public interest in R.K. Jain vs. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 1205) as under:
54. The factors to decide the public interest immunity would include (a) where the contents of the documents are relied upon, the interests affected by their disclosure; (b) where the class of documents is invoked, whether the public interest immunity for the class is said to protect; (c) the extent to which the interests referred to have become attenuated by the passage of time or the occurrence of intervening events since the matters contained in the documents themselves came into existence; (d) the seriousness of the issues in relation to which production is sought; (e) the likelihood that production of the documents will affect the outcome of the case; (f) the likelihood of injustice if the documents are not produced..."
55. ...................When public interest immunity against disclosure of the State documents in the transaction of business by the Council of Ministers of the affairs of State is made, in the clash of those interests, it is the right and duty of the court to weigh the balance in the scales that harm shall not be done to the nation or the public service and equally to the administration of justice."
30. Thus in various cases the courts said that the 'public purpose' needs to be interpreted in the strict sense and public interest has to be construed keeping in mind the balance between right to privacy and right to information. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public CIC/BS/A/2016/001111 Page 11 interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision.
31. One has to examine whether disclosure of contents of documents affect the interests of any person, the seriousness of the issues in relation to which the information was sought, the likelihood that disclosure will affect the outcome of the case, the likelihood of justice by production or injustice by hiding it, etc.
32. Justice PN Bhagwati, who recently died on June 12, 2017 at the age of 95, explained the "public interest" in S. P. Gupta v President of India, AIR 1982 SC 149:
Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, 'diffused' rights and interests vindicate public interest... [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.
33. In State of Gujarat v Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others AIR 2006 SC 2127), the Apex Court held "the interest of general public (public interest) is of a wide importance covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution [i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy]".
34. In CIC/OK/A/2006/00046 dated 02.05.2006 the Central Information Commission said that the public interest includes disclosure of information that leads towards greater transparency and accountability in the working of a public authority.
35. In Australia, Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 was passed to facilitate disclosure and investigation of wrongdoing and maladministration in their Commonwealth public sector. As per this law, an individual is not subject to any civil, criminal or administrative liability for making a public interest disclosure. It is an offence to take a reprisal, or to threaten to take a reprisal, against a person because of a public interest disclosure (including a proposed or a suspected public interest disclosure). The Federal Court or Federal Circuit Court may make orders for civil remedies (including compensation, injunctions and reinstatement of employment) if a reprisal is taken against a person because of a public interest disclosure (including a proposed or a suspected public interest CIC/BS/A/2016/001111 Page 12 disclosure). It is an offence to disclose the identity of an individual who makes a public interest disclosure.
36. Various protections apply to public interest disclosures. Broadly speaking, a public interest disclosure is a disclosure of information, by a public official, that is:
• a disclosure within the government, to an authorised internal recipient or a supervisor, concerning suspected or probable illegal conduct or other wrongdoing (referred to as "disclosable conduct"); or • a disclosure to anybody, if an internal disclosure of the information has not been adequately dealt with, and if wider disclosure satisfies public interest requirements; or • a disclosure to anybody if there is substantial and imminent danger to health or safety; or • a disclosure to an Australian legal practitioner for purposes connected with the above matters.
Law should serve public interest
37. It is the basic principle of legal policy that the law should serve the public interest. In one sense every rule of law, either Common Law or Equity, legislation or judicial legislation, has been based on considerations of public interest or policy. Every legal system must concern itself primarily with the public interest. Some of the Latin maxims, which highlight the 'public interest' are:
interest republicae, = 'it concerns the state'.
ne maleficia remanent impunita = that wrongdoers are not left unpunished ne sua re quis male utatur = no one should make wrongful use of his property.
38. While interpreting the law, one should strive to avoid adopting a construction which is in any way adverse to the public interest. While dealing with conflict of interests also one has to look into the public interest. In pursuance of the principle that the law should serve the public interest, the courts have evolved a significant technique called construction in bonam CIC/BS/A/2016/001111 Page 13 partem (=in good faith). If a statutory benefit is given on a specified condition being satisfied, it is presumed that Parliament intended the benefit to operate only where the required act is performed in a lawful manner. This interpretation is based on three principles: First is that a person should not benefit from his own wrong. Next is the principle allegans suam turpitudinem non est audiendus = a party alleging his own infamy/turpitude is not to be heard, if a person had to prove an unlawful act in order to claim the statutory benefit, this maxim would preclude him from succeeding. Third is ubi quid generaliter conceditur inest haec exception si non aliquid sit contra jus fasque = where a grant is in general terms there is always an implied provision that it shall not include anything which unlawful or immoral.
In Queensland of Australia, an applicant sought documents relating to woman and her children for the purpose of assembling information to reopen his conviction in a criminal case 13 years before. The women in question was alleged to have been the main witness against him and had previously lived with him. He wanted to prove that she had given perjured evidence. His request was refused. Tribunal considered it as 'unreasonable disclosure' concerning a person's personal affairs, which might endanger her safety. [Saleam v Director General, Community Services & Ors (2002) NSWADT 41 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWADT/2002/41.html]
39. The questions in this case are, the information sought is unreasonable, will it invade privacy of father, or is father not obliged to give that information which proves his liability towards daughter or wife at least to the extent of maintenance, etc. A father cannot escape liability by suppression of information. A disclosure helps a person to enforce a legal right. Public authority facilitating a breach of duty is unlawful and immoral. If the family is not maintained by the public servant, it could be a matter of misconduct and invite disciplinary action as explained above. A neglected daughter or wife is having rights of maintenance which could be enforced through appropriate process of law. If it is known that either of their names were mentioned in service book as nominees, there would be no need to litigate for rights, if not, the family members have right to seek remedies, which is part of general public interest. Thus disclosure enhances the public purpose. The content of information request, it's context and the purpose reveal that a daughter has a right to know what she asked CIC/BS/A/2016/001111 Page 14 because the rights of identity of biological daughter and maintenance of daughter and wife are involved in the disclosure. Thus the appellant in the instant case has made out a bona fide public interest in seeking information as required by Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission, therefore, is of the view that the appellant has succeeded in establishing that information sought is in larger public interest. That being the fact, Commission is inclined to entertain her second appeal.
40. In view of the above, the Commission directs respondent authority to inform to the appellant, whether her name or her mother's name has been incorporated as nominee by Mr. Arti Bejoy Chakraborty in his service book, within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. Disposed of.
SD/-
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Dinesh Kumar) Deputy Registrar Copy of decision given to the parties free of cost.
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI, Department of Posts, Sr. Supdt of Post Office, Kolkata RMS Division, RN Mukherjee Road.
2. Ms. Aparna Chakraborty, D/o Sh. Atri Bejoy, Village-
Patkelghata, PO-Pikhira, PS-Falta, Dist-South 24 Parganas, Pin-743513.
CIC/BS/A/2016/001111 Page 15