Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. In order to appreciate their respective contentions, it is first necessary to refer to Section 11(1) of the RTI Act which reads as under:

"11. Third party information .- (1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or the State Public information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:
Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party."

(emphasis supplied)

19. According to Mr. Bhushan, the „third party information‟ is that information which is in fact provided by the third party and further should be asked by the said third party to be kept confidential. It is only when both these conditions are fulfilled that Section 11(1) of the RTI Act is attracted. In other words, although Section 11(1) of the RTI Act indicates that where the information sought "relates to or has been supplied by a third party" the word „or‟ should be read as „and‟ for only then the provision would be workable. It was submitted that unless the above interpretation is placed on Section 11(1), it will not be possible for a person to access information relating to appointments to the various posts in the Government of India.

25. The logic of the Section 11(1) RTI Act is plain. Once the information seeker is provided information relating to a third party, it is no longer in the private domain. Such information seeker can then disclose in turn such information to the whole world. There may be an officer who may not want the whole world to know why he or she was overlooked for promotion. The defence of privacy in such a case cannot be lightly brushed aside saying that since the officer is a public servant he or she cannot possibly fight shy of such disclosure. There may be yet another situation where the officer may have no qualms about such disclosure. And there may be a third category where the credentials of the officer appointed may be thought of as being in public interest to be disclosed. The importance of the post held may also be a factor that might weigh with the information officer. This exercise of weighing the competing interests can possibly be undertaken only after hearing all interested parties. Therefore the procedure under Section 11(1) RTI Act.

27. The impugned order dated 12th June 2008 of the CIC and the consequential order dated 19th November 2008 of the CIC are hereby set aside. The appeals by Mr. Kejriwal will be restored to the file of the CIC for compliance with the procedure outlined under Section 11 (1) RTI Act limited to the information Mr. Kejriwal now seeks.

28. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6614 of 2008 filed by Mr. Arvind Kejriwal is dismissed and Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 8999 of 2008 and 8407 of 2009 filed by the Union of India are accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs. All the pending applications stand disposed of.