2014 (3) TMI 507 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Upholds Denial of RTI Request, Emphasizes Privacy Rights

The court upheld the denial of information under the RTI Act, emphasizing the protection of personal information and the absence of a genuine public ... Denial of information under RTI Act seeking personal information relating to IAS officers. - whether the information sought by the petitioner would be covered under the exemption granted under Clauses (e) and (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act? - Held that:- The information sought would clearly be in the nature of personal information in respect of the private respondents and not relatable to the discharge of their duties in official capacity. - The conflict between the right to personal privacy and the public interest in the disclosure of personal information stands recognized by the Legislature in terms of exempting purely personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Under such exemption clause, the disclosure may be refused if the request pertains to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relation to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. A Full Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal - [2010 (1) TMI 1104 - DELHI HIGH COURT] while examining the scope and ambit of the exemption envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act had held that personal information including tax returns/medical records, etc., are not liable to be disclosed. It has specifically been noticed in the impugned order dated 9-9-2010 that the petitioner held a personal grudge against some of the officials with regard to having been denied promotion while in service and in respect of other officers, he had a grievance that a land dispute pertaining to his family had not been handled properly. Accordingly, the Commission observed that the petitioner was seeking information with the clear object to denigrate the officers concerned. Such findings recorded by the respondent Commission do not carry any rebuttal by the petitioner in the instant petition. - Writ petition dismissed. Issues:Denial of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.Analysis:The petitioner, a Senior Executive Engineer, sought information under the RTI Act regarding seven IAS officers. The State Public Information Officer denied the information citing exemptions under Section 8(1)(e)(j) of the RTI Act. The petitioner's appeals were rejected by the First Appellate Authority and the State Information Commission, leading to the writ petition challenging these orders.The petitioner argued that the RTI Act aims to ensure access to public officials' actions and prevent corruption, emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability. The respondents contended that the petitioner's motives were mala fide and aimed at tarnishing their image. They argued that the information sought was personal and exempt under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.The key question was whether the information sought fell under the exemptions in Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The information requested, including salary details, TA bills, and PAN numbers, was deemed personal and not related to public activities. The legislative intent to protect personal information under Section 8(1)(j) was highlighted, supported by a precedent from the Delhi High Court.The court found that there was no public interest justifying the disclosure of the personal information sought, balancing privacy rights with transparency. It was noted that the petitioner's motives were personal, seeking information to settle scores or denigrate the officers involved. The court upheld the decisions of the appellate authorities and dismissed the writ petition, citing lack of grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.In conclusion, the court upheld the denial of information under the RTI Act, emphasizing the protection of personal information and the absence of a genuine public interest in the petitioner's requests. The judgment highlighted the need to balance transparency with privacy rights and rejected the petitioner's claims based on personal motives.