Court Orders Disclosure of UPSC Information Under RTI Act

The court held that the information sought from UPSC, including office notings and correspondence, should be disclosed under the RTI Act. It ruled that there is no fiduciary relationship between UPSC and the department seeking advice, and personal information exemptions do not apply when the information is requested by the concerned individual. Concerns about endangering officers' safety were acknowledged, but redaction of identifying details was deemed sufficient. The court emphasized that the necessity of notings is not a requirement for disclosure under the RTI Act and directed UPSC to provide the information with specified safeguards within four weeks, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the copies of office notings recorded on the file of UPSC and the correspondence exchanged between UPSC and the Department seeking its advice can be accessed under the RTI Act by the person to whom such advice relates.

Summary:

Issue 1: Fiduciary Relationship
The petitioner, UPSC, contended that there exists a fiduciary relationship between UPSC and the department seeking its advice, making the information exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation of 'fiduciary relationship' in *Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay* and *Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi*, concluding that no fiduciary relationship exists between UPSC and the department in this context. The information provided by the department to UPSC pertains to the employee against whom disciplinary proceedings are initiated and is already available to the concerned employee. Therefore, the plea of fiduciary relationship is not applicable when the information is sought by the employee to whom it pertains.

Issue 2: Personal Information
The petitioner argued that the file notings and correspondences might contain personal information relating to other persons, exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act. The court held that exemption under this clause cannot be claimed when the information is sought by the person to whom the personal information relates. If the notings or correspondence contain third-party personal information, it can be excluded while providing the information.

Issue 3: Endangerment of Life or Physical Safety
The petitioner expressed concerns that disclosing the identity of officers who recorded the notings might endanger their life or physical safety, making the information exempt u/s 8(1)(g) of the Act. The court acknowledged the validity of this concern but stated that the objective can be achieved by redacting the name, designation, and any other identifying details of the officers, rather than denying the notings altogether.

Issue 4: Necessity of Notings for Information Seeker
The petitioner contended that the notings are not necessary for the information seeker, who is only concerned with the ultimate advice rendered by UPSC. The court dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the RTI Act does not require the applicant to disclose the purpose for seeking information or to justify its necessity.

Conclusion:
The court directed UPSC to provide the requested information with the following safeguards:
1. Redact the date, name, designation, and any other identifying details of the person recording the notings or writing the letters.
2. Exclude any personal information relating to third parties.
3. Provide the information within four weeks.

No order as to costs.

---