TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 375
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er is the Chairman of the Technical Advisory Committee set up by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to advise on RTI, in a honorary capacity. 4 The Petitioner on or about 21112012 made an application under Section 6 of the said Act, to the CPIO of the Income Tax Department inter alia requesting certain information and more particularly the Income Tax Returns and balance sheets of the Respondent No.3 herein for the preceding three years. The Petitioner in the said application justified the information sought by stating to the following effect: "There is a larger public interest in disclosing this information to compare his affidavit given to the Election Commission with his Income Tax returns". Since the information related to the Respondent No.3 who is a third party, it seems that in terms of Section 11 of the said Act, a letter was addressed by the CPIO to the Respondent No.3. A reply was received from the Respondent No.3 opposing the disclosure of any information. The CPIO of the Income Tax Department thereafter by her order dated 212013 denied the said information sought by the Petitioner. It was observed in the said order that the information sought for has no relatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 8(1)(j) of the said Act. The First Appellate Authority further observed that the said information is a personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the concerned party. Hence on the aforesaid grounds, the Appeal filed by the Petitioner came to be rejected. 7 The Petitioner thereafter filed a Second Appeal before the Central Information Commission, New Delhi. The Petitioner in the Second Appeal relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of R. Rajgopal alias R.R.Gopal & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (1994)6 Supreme Court Cases 632 and the Judgment of the Apex Court in Association for Democratic Rights's case (supra), a ground was raised that the judgment of the Apex Court in Girish Ramchandra Desphande's case (supra) has been rendered without considering the said two judgments as also without considering the proviso to the said Section 8(1)(j) of the said Act. The said Second Appeal filed by the Petitioner came to be disposed of by the Central Information Commissioner by upholding the orders passed by the Public Information Officer and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en the said information has to be provided. The authorities below have failed to appreciate the reason why the Applicant was seeking the said information which was sought by him by the application in question. (iv) That the authorities below have erred in applying the judgment of the 5 Member Bench of the Information Commission as also the Judgment of the Apex Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case (supra) as the facts in the said cases are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. (v) That the Judgment in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case (Supra) does not lay down any proposition of law and therefore cannot be applied. (vi) That the disclosure of the information sought for by the Applicant would be in larger public interest which outweighs the breach of privacy if any of the Respondent No.3. (vii) That the authorities below failed to consider the application on the touchstone of the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) of the said Act namely that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or the State Legislature cannot be denied to a citizen. (viii) That a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surup Singh Naik Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e application for seeking the information that the Petitioner/Applicant has sought in respect of the Respondent No.3 no case of public interest has made out and hence the Petitioner has failed to discharge the burden which would entitle him to the said information. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. Saiyed Hussan Abbas Rizvi & Anr. (2012) 13 SCC 61 (ii) That the information sought namely the Income Tax Returns of the Respondent No.3 has no relation with any public activity of the Respondent No.3 (iii) That in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case (supra) which has been reiterated by the Apex Court in R.K.Jain's case (supra), the information relating to the Income Tax Returns falls within the exempted category under Section 8(1)(j) and since no case of public interest has been made out by the Petitioner, the said information cannot be provided. The authorities below were therefore right in rejecting the application of the Petitioner. (iv) That the Judgments on which reliance is placed on behalf of the Petitioner have no relevance in the context of the information ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed with the information given at the time of filing the nomination. CONSIDERATION 8 Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, I have considered the rival contentions. The question that arises for consideration in the instant matter is whether the Petitioner is entitled to the information he has sought for vide his application filed under the said Act or whether the said information falls within the exempted category under Section 8(1)(j) of the said Act. At this stage, it would necessary to refer to the provisions of the said Act which have a bearing in the instant matter. The said provisions are Section Section 8(1)(j) and Section 11 of the said Act, which for the sake of ready reference are reproduced herein under : 8. Exemption from disclosure of information. -(/) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,- (a) ........... (b) ........... (c) ........... (d) ........... (e) ........... (f) ........... (g) ........... (h) ........... (i) ........... (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssible harm or injury to the interests of such third party. (2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under subsection (/) to a third party in respect of any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the request under section b, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation under subsection (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof and give in writing the notice of his decision to the third (4) A notice given under subsection (3) shall include a statement that the third party to whom the notice is given is entitled to prefer an appeal under section 19 against the decision. 9 In so far as Section 11 is concerned, if the information sought relates to a third party, the CPIO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said Act. 11 The Petitioner aggrieved by the said order dated 212013 filed an Appeal before the First Appellate Authority under Section 19 of the said Act. After justifying the reason for seeking information, the Petitioner in paragraph (4) of the said Appeal has stated to the following effect : "There is a general belief that politicians and elected representatives are corrupt and mass wealth at the expense of the public. There is also a common belief that Income Tax authorities do not check that IT returns of those who are elected with their declared affidavits filed at the time of standing for elections. If this true, citizens will act as monitors and help correct such practices. On the other hand if citizens apprehensions are not true, it would enhance the trust and respect for the elected representative, which is necessary for a healthy democracy. Besides it would also improve the Citizens' trust in the Income Tax department." Hence the Petitioner had sought to supplement the reason given in his original application before the CPIO by making a general statement in his Appeal to the effect mentioned in the excerpted portion of paragraph (4) as above of his Appeal. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gifts stated to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the abovementioned information sought for qualifies to be "personal information" as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. 12. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. 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. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ute personal information and are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) and that the said personal information can only be divulged if the CPIO or the State Public Information Officer reaches a conclusion that it would be in the larger public interest to reveal such information. In the instant case, the reason set forth in the first application filed by the Petitioner before the Public Information Officer hardly makes out a case for the information to be disclosed on the ground of public interest. In so far as the ground made out in the Appeal filed before the First Appellate Authority is concerned, the Petitioner has sought to make a general statement which does not specifically relate to the Respondent No.3. The Petitioner has also sought to justify the information sought on the ground that the Income Tax authorities do not check the Income Tax Returns of those who are elected with their declared affidavits filed at the time of standing for elections. The said ground also does not make out any case of there being any public interest involved in the disclosure of the information sought by the Petitioner by way of the Income Tax Returns of the Respondent No.3 for the preced....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ormation appropriate orders could be passed, but the Petitioner cannot claim the said details as a matter of right. Hence the Apex Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case (Supra) was directly concerned with Section 8(1)(j) of the said Act and exemption from disclosure covered by the said provision, it is in the said context that the Apex Court made observations and recorded a finding that the details in the Income Tax Returns is personal information and can be disclosed only if public interest so warrants. The Apex Court thereby laid down a proposition that the information covered by clause 8(1)(j) is an exempted information and can be disclosed only if the CPIO or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that it would be in the public interest to do so. Hence the contention urged by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the judgment in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case (supra) lay down any law has to be rejected. In my view the reliance placed by the Petitioner on the judgments of the Apex Court reported in 1979(3) Supreme Court Case 745, 1992(1) Supreme Court Cases 489 and (2002) 8 Supreme Court Cases 361 to contend that Girish Ramchandra Deshapande's case (sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....33A. The plenary power of the Election Commission of India to issue directions for a free and fair conduct of the elections cannot be doubted, if the Election Commission is of the opinion that some further directions are required to be issued to see to it that the elections are free and fair undoubtedly has the powers to issue the directions. However since the Parliament has deemed it appropriate to limit the information in respect of the candidate to the extent mentioned in Section 33A, it is not open for a citizen to contend that he seeks certain information to cross check the information which has been revealed by the candidate at the time of filing of his nomination. If the information furnished by a candidate is false, he can be prosecuted under Section 125A of the said Act. In the instant case, as indicated above, the Petitioner has sought information to cross check the information furnished by the Respondent No.3 at the time of filing of his nomination with his Income Tax Returns the said reason can therefore hardly said to satisfy the test of the same being in public interest. The information sought also has no connection with any public activity of the Respondent No.3. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... may mean an order issued to a particular individual or a precept which may have to follow and it may be specific or a general order and such phrase should be construed liberally empowering the election commission to issue such orders. 3. The word "elections" includes the entire process of election which consists of several stages and it embraces many steps, some of which may have an important bearing on the process of choosing a candidate. Fair election contemplates disclosure by the candidate of his past including the assets held by him so as to give a proper choice to the candidate according to his thinking and opinion. As stated earlier, in Common Cause case (supra) the Court dealt with a contention that elections in the country are fought with the help of money power which is gathered from black sources and once elected to power, it becomes easy to collect tons of black money, which is used for retaining power and for reelection. If on affidavit a candidate is required to disclose the assets held by him at the time of election, voter can decide whether he could be reelected even in case where he has collected tons of money. Presuming, as contended by the learned senior counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h more fundamental and basic for survival of democracy. The little man may think over before making his choice of electing law breakers as law makers. 18 In so far as the next judgment of the Apex Court in P.U.C.L. and another's case (supra) is concerned, the Apex Court was considering the challenge raised to Section 33B of the Representation of the People Act. The Apex Court was considering the disclosure of information by a candidate under Section 33A of the said Act in the context of the right to privacy which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The observations of the Apex Court in paragraph 49 of the said judgment are material and are for the sake of ready reference reproduced herein under :49 It is to be stated that the Election Commission has from time to time issued instructions/orders to meet with the situation where the field is unoccupied by the legislation. Hence, the norms and modalities to carry out and give effect to the aforesaid directions should be drawn up properly by the Election Commission as early as possible and in any case within two months." 19 In my view, the aforesaid judgments can hardly further the case of the Petitioner to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cy of the Respondent No.3 is affected, in fact the said judgment supports the case of the Respondent No.3 as the Apex Court has observed that the right to privacy would have to give way if what is published is from public records. In the instant case, the records maintained by the Income Tax Department in respect of an individual who is an assessee before it cannot be said to be a public record as it is well settled that the Income Tax Department holds the said records in a fiduciary capacity. 21 The learned counsel for the Petitioner has sought to place reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in the matter of Kashinath J. Shetye vs. Dinsh Vaghela 11 . In the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case also R.K.Jain's case which judgments of the Apex Court are latter in point of time. The said judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court stands impliedly overruled. 22 The exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the said Act had come up for consideration before the Apex Court recently in Bihar Public Service 11 2009(0)AIJMH 146009 Commission's Case (supra). The Apex Court after observing that informat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is satisfied, the information cannot be provided. Hence the burden on the Applicant is much more onerous than may be a routine case. As indicated in the earlier part of this judgment the reason mentioned in the original application as supplemented by the grounds in the First Appeal hardly make out a case of public interest. Hence in the instant case, the said burden cannot said to have been discharged by the Petitioner. Hence the finding of the First Appellate Authority as well as the CIC that the Petitioner has not made out any case for disclosure of the information on the ground of public interest cannot be faulted with. 23 The Petitioner has sought to place reliance on the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) of the said Act and has sought to contend that the authorities below have not considered the application of the Petitioner on the touchstone of the said Proviso. It was the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner based on the said proviso that the Petitioner would have to furnish the said information having regard to the proviso as the information sought by the Petitioner cannot be denied to the Parliament or the State Legislature. In support of the said contention the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of the public to be informed on the other considering the provisions of the said Act. The Division Bench observed that it was concerned with a case where a person convicted for contempt of court, does such a person during the period of incarceration, claim privilege or confidentially in respect of the medical records maintained by a public authority. The Division Bench considered the issue on the touchstone of the proviso and recorded a finding that such information normally cannot be denied to Parliament or the State Legislature unless the person who opposes the release of the information makes out a case that such information is not available to Parliament or the State Legislation under the Act. The Division Bench went on to observe that having regard to the plenary powers which the legislature enjoys, such information cannot be denied to Parliament or State legislature by any public authority. The Division Bench concluded that the records of the institution i.e. Sir J J Group of Hospitals, therefore,, ought to be made available to Parliament or the State Legislature. The Parliament/Legislature and/or its Committees are entitled to the records even if they be confidential or pe....