2013 (3) TMI 442 - HC - Indian Laws

Court affirms disclosure decision under RTI Act, exemptions not applicable, petitioner to consider Section 10

UPSC Versus RK. JAIN

The court upheld the decision of the Central Information Commission (CIC) regarding the disclosure of information sought under the Right to Information ... Writ Petition - Petition is filed against the decision of the CIC preferred under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 whereby the petitioner has been directed to provide the relevant records in its possession as sought by the Respondent herein. The respondent by an application filed under Section 6 of the Act, sought the following Information from the petitioner inspection of the records and other many documents relating to the proposed disciplinary action and/or imposition of penalty against Shri G.S. Narang, IRS, Central Excise and Customs Officer of 1974 Batch and also inspection of records, files, etc., relating to the decision of the UPSC thereof. The CPIO of the petitioner, however, declined to provide the same on the ground that the information sought pertained to the disciplinary case was of personal nature, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. The petitioner, therefore, claimed exemption from disclosing the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The Respondent, consequently, filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Act, before the 1st Appellate Authority of the Petitioner. The Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeal on the same ground. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the Respondent preferred an appeal before the CIC. Setting aside the decision of the ‘First Appellate Authority’, the CIC held as follows. CIC are of the view that the CPIO was not right in denying this information. Being aggrieved by the order of CIC Petitioner filed the writ petition. Petitioner submits that the information sought by the Respondent in his RTI application is not with the Petitioner and stated that the said information relates to the actions of the concerned Ministry/Department and as such no record thereof is available and rest of the Information sought by the Respondent is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e), 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the Act. The Respondent, on the other hand, has at the outset submitted that the CIC has merely directed the disclosure of the records in possession of the UPSC. It has not directed the Petitioner to procure records from the concerned Ministries and the same is not exempted under Section 8(1)(e), 8(1)(g) or 8(1)(j) of the Act. Held that : - After Examining the Section 8(1)(e), 8(1)(g) or 8(1)(j) of the Act. In view of above, the decision of the CIC is upheld, subject to the modification that the petitioner may, examine the case with regard to applicability of Section 10 of the Act, in relation to the names of the officers who may have acted in the process of opinion formation while dealing with the case of concerned charge officer. Issues Involved:1. Exemption from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.2. Exemption from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.3. Exemption from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.4. Validity of the Central Information Commission's (CIC) decision in light of concurrent decisions and pending cases.Detailed Analysis:1. Exemption from Disclosure under Section 8(1)(j)- Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the information sought pertains to the disciplinary case of a third party (Shri G.S. Narang) and is of a personal nature, thus exempt under Section 8(1)(j) as it would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy.- Respondent's Argument: The respondent contended that the information relates to public activity and public interest, not personal information, and hence should be disclosed.- Court's Analysis: The court clarified that 'personal information' under Section 8(1)(j) pertains to information that does not relate to any public activity or interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy unless larger public interest justifies its disclosure. The court noted that disciplinary proceedings against a public servant relate to public duties and thus, disclosure would not invade privacy. Moreover, transparency and accountability in public administration justify the disclosure in the larger public interest.- Conclusion: The exemption under Section 8(1)(j) does not apply as the information sought pertains to public activity and serves larger public interest.2. Exemption from Disclosure under Section 8(1)(e)- Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner claimed that the information is held in a fiduciary capacity and is exempt under Section 8(1)(e).- Respondent's Argument: The respondent argued that there is no fiduciary relationship in this case and the information does not endanger anyone's life or safety.- Court's Analysis: The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, which defines fiduciary relationship. It concluded that the petitioner's officers, while giving opinions and recommendations, were not in a fiduciary relationship with the charged officer but were performing their public duties.- Conclusion: The exemption under Section 8(1)(e) is not applicable as the information is not held in a fiduciary capacity.3. Exemption from Disclosure under Section 8(1)(g)- Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that disclosure would endanger the life or safety of the officers involved in the disciplinary proceedings.- Respondent's Argument: The respondent contended that there is no such danger and the information should be disclosed.- Court's Analysis: The court found that the exemption under Section 8(1)(g) applies only if disclosure endangers life or physical safety or identifies the source of information given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes. The court suggested that any concerns regarding safety could be addressed by severing sensitive parts of the information under Section 10 of the Act.- Conclusion: The exemption under Section 8(1)(g) is not applicable as the information does not endanger life or safety, and concerns can be mitigated through severability.4. Validity of CIC's Decision- Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the CIC's decision is unsustainable as it contradicts concurrent decisions and was made while similar issues were pending before the court.- Respondent's Argument: The respondent maintained that the CIC's decision was specific to the facts of the case and did not violate any legal principles.- Court's Analysis: The court held that the CIC's decision was made based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case. The pendency of similar issues in other cases does not preclude the CIC from making its decision unless restrained by the court.- Conclusion: The CIC's decision is upheld, with a modification that the petitioner may examine the applicability of Section 10 regarding the names of officers involved in the opinion formation process.Final Judgment:The court upheld the decision of the CIC, subject to the modification that the petitioner may apply Section 10 of the Act concerning the names of the officers involved in the disciplinary proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of, and the interim order was vacated.