Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on October 20, 2010:

The following were present:

Appellant: Absent;

Respondent: Absent;

Third Party: Ms. Purti Marwaha and Mr. Chirag Kher, Advocates representing Mrs. Maneesha Dhir;

The Third Party gave written submissions and objections to disclosure of information claming that the information sought was exempted under Sections 8(1)(d), (e), (g) and (j) of the RTI Act. The Third Party drew the attention of the Commission particularly to paragraphs P, Q and S in the written submissions. The representatives of the Third Party also relied on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi (the "Delhi HC") in W. P. (C) 6614/2008 and C. M. Appl. No. 12685/2008, W. P. (C) 8999/2008 and C. M. Appl. No. 7517/2008, W. P. (C) 8407/2009 and C. M. Appl. 5286/2009 of S. Muralidhar, J.

The Commission observed that the information sought under query 1 of the RTI application dated 23/04/2010 pertained to the Third Party. In the instant case, on receipt of the RTI application, the PIO forwarded the same to the Third Party vide letter dated 07/05/2010 and sought reply/ objections of the Third Party as per Section 11 of the RTI Act. The Third Party, who is the owner of property number A- 279, Defence Colony, vide letter dated 20/05/2010, raised objections under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act in relation to disclosure of the sanction plan sought under query 1 of the RTI application.

In the instant case, the Commission noted that on receipt of the RTI application dated 23/04/2010, the PIO forwarded the same to the Third Party vide letter dated 07/05/2010 and sought reply/ objections of the Third Party as per Section 11 of the RTI Act. The Third Party, who is the owner of property number A- 279, Defence Colony, vide letter dated 20/05/2010, raised objections in relation to disclosure of the sanction plan sought under query 1 of the RTI application. On perusal of the written submissions, it was observed that the Third Party has submitted inter alia that the information sought was exempted under Sections 8(1)(d), (e), (g), (j) and 9 of the RTI Act. Therefore, the Commission has examined the applicability of the aforementioned exemptions claimed by the Third Party.

Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person."

From a plain reading of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, it appears that divulgence of any personal information to any third party that has no relationship with any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual is barred under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

In the instant case, the Third Party has argued that disclosure of the sanctioned building plan cannot, in any manner, be linked with the larger public interest. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Delhi HC in Union of India v. CIC in W. P. (C) No. 16907/2009 wherein it was observed in Paragraph 28 inter alia that Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act consists of three parts. The first two parts stipulate that personal information which has no relationship with any public activity or interest need not be disclosed. The second part states that any information which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual should not be disclosed unless the third part is satisfied. The third part stipulates that information which causes unwarranted invasion of privacy of an individual shall not be disclosed unless the PIO or appellate authority is satisfied that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. Therefore, the disclosure of the sanctioned building plan of the Third Party has no relation with any public activity or interest and hence should not be disclosed as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.