Court dismisses petition challenging RTI denial on SGPC employees' info, citing lack of public interest.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the denial of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding employees of SGPC. The court held that the petitioner failed to establish public interest in seeking the information, deeming the request a personal grievance. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande case, the court clarified that details like show cause notices and punishments are exempt from disclosure unless public interest justifies it. The court emphasized the necessity of demonstrating public interest for disclosure under the Act, which was absent in this case.

---

---

Issues:
Denial of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Analysis:
The petitioner submitted applications seeking information related to employees of Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) who were suspended, reinstated, and punished. The Public Information Officer declined the information, leading to complaints before the State Information Commission, which were dismissed. The petitioner argued that denial of information on punishments for corrupt activities would go against the Act's aim of transparency. The petitioner sought quashing of the orders and directions for information supply, citing a Delhi High Court judgment.

The petitioner's requests for information pertained to specific employees and grounds of suspension, reinstatement details, and punishments. The Act's Section 8(1)(j) exempts disclosure of personal information unrelated to public activity, unless larger public interest justifies disclosure. The Supreme Court's ruling in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande case clarified that details like show cause notices and punishments are personal information, exempt under Section 8(1)(j) unless public interest justifies disclosure.

The State Information Commission noted the petitioner's lack of establishing public interest in seeking the information, as the petitioner intended to use it for a personal court case challenge. The Commission found the petitioner's request to be a personal grievance, not related to public interest. The reliance on a previous judgment was deemed misplaced, as that case involved established public interest, unlike the present case.

The court dismissed the writ petition, stating no basis for interference in the State Information Commission's orders. The judgment emphasized the need for establishing public interest for disclosure under the Act, which was lacking in the petitioner's case.

---