2012 (10) TMI 218 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Information Under RTI Act, Emphasizes Privacy Rights

Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Versus Central Information Commissioner

The Supreme Court upheld the denial of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, citing Section 8(1)(j) regarding personal information not ... Information denied under RTI Act by CIC - information pertaining to service career - Held that:- The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. Thus the details called for by the petitioner are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression 'personal information', the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. Also the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right. Thus the petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act - SPL rejected. Issues:- Denial of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 based on the definition of personal information in Section 8(1)(j).- Interpretation of personal information and its relation to public activity or interest.- Applicability of the exemption clauses under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.- Justification for disclosure of personal information under the larger public interest.Analysis:The judgment concerns the denial of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, based on the definition of personal information in Section 8(1)(j). The petitioner sought various details regarding a third respondent's employment, assets, liabilities, and other financial aspects. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner denied the information citing Section 8(1)(j) as it was deemed personal information not related to public activity or interest, causing an unwarranted invasion of privacy.The Central Information Commissioner (CIC) upheld the denial, stating that the information qualified as personal information under Section 8(1)(j) and did not serve a larger public interest. The CIC directed disclosure of certain information while maintaining the denial for other queries. The petitioner challenged this decision through a writ petition and subsequent appeals, arguing that the information sought did not intrude on privacy and was relevant to public activity.The Supreme Court analyzed the scope of Section 8(1)(j) concerning personal information and public interest. It affirmed that details like memos, show cause notices, and financial information requested by the petitioner qualified as personal information exempt from disclosure unless a larger public interest justified it. The Court emphasized that mere disclosure without public interest would invade an individual's privacy.The Court highlighted the importance of establishing a bona fide public interest when seeking personal information under the RTI Act. It concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a larger public interest in accessing the information, leading to the dismissal of the special leave petition. The judgment underscores the balance between transparency and privacy rights under the RTI Act, emphasizing the need for justifying disclosure in the broader public interest.