Hindustan
Times: New Delhi: Monday, October 15, 2012.
In a ruling
that would be music to the ears of babus, the Supreme Court (SC) has held that
a government officer’s personal details such as income-tax (I-T) returns cannot
be divulged in response to a query under the Right to Information Act (RTI)
unless a larger public interest was involved. Disclosure of such information
would amount to unwarranted invasion of an officer’s privacy, it said.
“The
performance of an employee or officer in an organisation 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,” said a bench of Justice KS Radhakrishnan and Justice Dipak Misra.
Under the
transparency law, the court observed, information on the officer cannot be made
public as his or her performance is a matter between the employee and an
employer. Such information cannot be claimed as a right by others, it said.
“The details
disclosed by a person in his I-T returns are ‘personal information’ which stand
exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act,
unless a larger public interest is involved and the Central Public Information
Officer or State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is
satisfied that a larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such
information,” the bench noted in its verdict.
Dismissing an
appeal against the denial of information regarding a government servant’s
service matters and also the details of his assets, liabilities and movable and
immovable assets, the bench said the particulars sought by the petitioner fell
under the expression of an officer’s “personal information.”
The
petitioner, the court observed, could not have claimed disclosure of such
information as a matter of right.
The SC agreed
with the concurrent findings of the Central Information Commission and the
Bombay High Court, stating personal information could be divulged only if the
public information officer was satisfied that a larger public interest
justified the disclosure.
The
petitioner before the SC had approached the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner (Ministry of Labour) on August 27, 2008, seeking various details
relating to a person employed as an enforcement officer in the sub-regional
office, Akola.
He had also
sought the details related to his service record including the copies of all
memos, showcause notices or a censure notice, if any, served upon the officer.
The
petitioner wanted a list of gifts accepted by the official, his family members
and relatives on his son’s marriage.
“We are of
the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the info
sought is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not
inclined to entertain this special leave petition,” the bench observed.
.JPG)
.JPG)
