Central Information Commission
Aditya Sengar vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 28 April, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/EPFOG/A/2022/604768
Aditya Sengar ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
EPFO, Regional Office
Bengaluru (Central), RTI Cell,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, No.
13, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road,
Bengaluru-560025, Karnataka. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17/04/2023
Date of Decision : 17/04/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23/11/2021
CPIO replied on : 21/12/2021
First appeal filed on : 21/12/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 19/01/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.11.2021 seeking the following information:
"I am the husband of Shubhangi Bhadoriya and pay 8000 per month as interim maintenance under section 125 of crpc. As she was employed hence I request EPFO data for last one year for court to help in deciding the right amount of maintenance that should be awarded to her.
Following are her details.
Team, UAN 1005 4890 9760 Name: Shubhangi Bhadoriya PAN: ARMPB3818L"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 21.12.2021 and stated as under:
"You are seeking information of your wife Smt. Shubhangi Bhadoriya. The information sought by you amounts to personal information of third party, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or larger public interest. The information related to EPF members is maintained by EPFO in fiduciary capacity as the trustee and hence cannot be disclosed to you in terms of Section 8 (1)(e) & (j) of RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.12.2021. FAA's order, dated 19.01.2022 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: J Hari, APFC & CPIO present through video-conference.
The Appellant stated that the core ground raised in the instant matter revolves around the issue of a matrimonial discord between him and his estranged wife and pendency of a maintenance case in a family court for which he was being directed by the court to pay a monthly fixed amount as maintenance to his 2 estranged wife. He further expressed his dissatisfaction with the blanket denial of information by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(e) of RTI Act. He furthermore contested the fact that such information is needed in order to corroborate evidence in the family court that his wife was a working/ independent woman contrary to the false affidavit submitted by the latter before the Family Court deposing that she was unemployed which is factually not correct.
In response to Appellant's contentions, the CPIO reiterated the denial of information under Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of RTI Act and further invited attention of the bench towards his written submission dated 11.04.2023 wherein he explained their denial as under -
"....the information of a PF member is the personal and financial information of that individual, disclosure of which to a third party would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. In this case, the appellant has not established any larger public interest that justifies the disclosure of such information sought by him in request the said Family Court to issue an order/direction to this office to furnish the information sought duly justifying the decision to disclose personal information of the party concerned. In view of the above, the decision of the CPIO to not disclose the said information is found to be correct and proper.
xxx The following decision has made in similar case of second appeal vide CIC/EPFOG/A/2021/660465 is placed for perusal.
The commission finds it pertinent to rely up on the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & CM CIC/EPFOG/A/2021/660465 APPL.16337/2021 of Amit Meharia versus Commissioner of Police & Ors. Registrar, Supreme Court v. R.S. Misra that the provisions of the RTI Act are for achieving transparency and not for making available information to be used in other proceedings, especially if there are other remedies available to the persons who seeks the information under another statute..."
In rebuttal to Appellant's contentions, the CPIO further explained that being a member of EPFO may not / need not necessarily reflects the employment status as on that date.3
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records is in agreement with the submissions tendered by the CPIO during hearing that similar issue has already been heard and decided by the coordinate bench on 24.01.2023 vide case file no. CIC/EPFOG/A/2021/660465 with the following observations -
"...Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the information sought in the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of a third party, which is held by the Respondent Public Authority in fiduciary capacity and the same has been appropriately denied by the Respondent under Section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act. However, since the Appellant is contesting the same, the Commission finds it pertinent to rely upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & CM APPL.16337/2021 in the matter of Amit Meharia versus Commissioner of Police & Ors. decided on 17.08.2021, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held as under:
"16. A perusal of all these FIRs and complaints therein would show that allegations have been made by the Respondent No. 4 against both her exhusbands as also the in-laws etc. Thus, the privacy which is to be considered in this case is not just the privacy of Respondent No.4 alone, but in fact, that of the said husbands against whom complaints were filed as well as the in laws etc. The personal information in this case does not relate only to the Petitioner or Respondent No.4 but also to those other persons who were the subject matter of the said complaints and FIR. Thus, the exception under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 would clearly apply in the present case.
...
...
19. The Supreme Court has clearly observed in Registrar, Supreme Court v. R.S. Misra [2017 SCC OnLine Del 11811] that the provisions of the RTI Act are for achieving transparency and not for making available information to be used in other proceedings, especially if there are other remedies available to the persons who seek the information, under another statute. The relevant extract reads as under:
"xxx xxx xxx 4
53. The preamble shows that the RTI Act has been enacted only to make accessible to the citizen the information with the public authorities which hitherto was not available. Neither the Preamble of the RTI Act nor does any other provision of the Act disclose the purport of the RTI Act to provide additional mode for accessing information with the public authorities which has already formulated rules and schemes for making the said information available. Certainly if the said rules, regulations and schemes do not provide for accessing information which has been made accessible under the RTI Act, resort can be had to the provision of the RTI Act but not to duplicate or to multiply the modes of accessing information.
54. This Court is further of the opinion that if any information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under another statute, then the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be resorted to as there is absence of the very basis for invoking the provisions of RTI Act, namely, lack of transparency. In APPL.16337/2021 in the matter of Amit Meharia versus Commissioner of Police & Ors. decided on 17.08.2021, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held as under:
"16. A perusal of all these FIRs and complaints therein would show that allegations have been made by the Respondent No. 4 against both her exhusbands as also the in-laws etc. Thus, the privacy which is to be considered in this case is not just the privacy of Respondent No.4 alone, but in fact, that of the said husbands against whom complaints were filed as well as the in laws etc. The personal information in this case does not relate only to the Petitioner or Respondent No.4 but also to those other persons who were the subject matter of the said complaints and FIR. Thus, the exception under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 would clearly apply in the present case.
...
...
19. The Supreme Court has clearly observed in Registrar, Supreme Court v. R.S. Misra [2017 SCC OnLine Del 11811] that the provisions of the RTI Act are for achieving transparency and not for making available information to be used in other proceedings, especially if there are other remedies available to the persons who seek the information, under another statute. The relevant extract reads as under:
"xxx xxx xxx 5
53. The preamble shows that the RTI Act has been enacted only to make accessible to the citizen the information with the public authorities which hitherto was not available. Neither the Preamble of the RTI Act nor does any other provision of the Act disclose the purport of the RTI Act to provide additional mode for accessing information with the public authorities which has already formulated rules and schemes for making the said information available. Certainly if the said rules, regulations and schemes do not provide for accessing information which has been made accessible under the RTI Act, resort can be had to the provision of the RTI Act but not to duplicate or to multiply the modes of accessing information.
54. This Court is further of the opinion that if any information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under another statute, then the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be resorted to as there is absence of the very basis for invoking the provisions of RTI Act, namely, lack of transparency. In other words, the provisions of RTI Act are not to be resorted to if the same are not actuated to achieve transparency."
Keeping in view of the aforesaid ratio, the Commission upholds the stance of the Respondent public authority and accordingly finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter...."
Furthermore, the contention raised by the Appellant in the instant case regarding submission of false affidavit by his estranged wife before the Family court has not been properly explained in the Second Appeal/First Appeal rather it has been vaguely mentioned by the Appellant during hearing. In the instant case, the new issue raised by the Appellant during hearing was rather feeble and lacked conviction; moreover it seems to be more in the nature of grievance which is outside the mandate of RTI Act.
In the facts of the instant case , the attention of the Appellant 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 & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
6"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 privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..." Emphasis Supplied.
However, in pursuance of clause 4 of hearing notice, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of his latest written submission free of cost with the Appellant within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7