Delhi HC sets aside CIC order directing SC to maintain separate medical reimbursement records for judges

Delhi HC set aside CIC order directing SC to maintain separate records of medical bill reimbursements for each judge. Court held that medical records are not liable for disclosure unless larger public interest is shown. Individual medical reimbursement details constitute personal information revealing extent of medical services availed. CIC's assumption that citizens can seek copies of individual judges' medical bills was erroneous. Direction to maintain records in particular manner must be based on public interest considerations, which were absent. Petition allowed, impugned order set aside.

---

---

Issues:
Impugned order directing separate maintenance of medical reimbursement records for judges of the Supreme Court.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order by the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing separate maintenance of medical reimbursement records for judges of the Supreme Court. The respondent sought details of medical expenses of judges and their families, which was rejected citing exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The CIC directed the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to provide the total amount of medical expenses reimbursed and to maintain judge-wise information separately. The petitioner argued that the Act does not require public authorities to create new information for RTI applicants and that the impugned order interferes with the Supreme Court's power to make rules under Article 145 of the Constitution.

The respondent contended that public authorities should maintain information transparently to fulfill the Act's purpose. The CIC's order was challenged on grounds of invasion of privacy, as medical records are considered personal information exempt from disclosure. The CIC's power under Section 19(8)(a)(iv) of the Act is to ensure compliance with Section 4(1)(a) regarding record maintenance for facilitating right to information. Since medical records are excluded under Section 8(1) of the Act, directions for their maintenance are not warranted. The CIC's assumption that citizens can seek medical bills overlooks privacy concerns and the absence of larger public interest justifying disclosure.

The judgment emphasized that financial information sought by the respondent is available in financial records, and disclosure could be required in cases of larger public interest. The CIC's direction to maintain records for individual information seekers was deemed unnecessary without public interest considerations. The decision highlighted that maintaining records for generating reports should be based on public interest, which was lacking in this case. As the impugned order solely focused on record maintenance, other contentions were not examined, and the petition was allowed, setting aside the order.

---