Financial Express: New Delhi: Saturday,
August 13, 2016.
The Central
Information Commission today directed Income Tax department to “duly consider
the larger public interest” while responding to an RTI request seeking returns
filed by 20 MPs during 2004-09.
The RTI
request filed by Anil Bairwal of Association for Democratic Reforms seeking to
get details of Income Tax Returns filed by these MPs was rejected by the Income
Tax Department terming it to be personal information.
“The CPIO
could have culled out some information out of Assessment orders without
disclosing the personal information adopting doctrine of severability of
Section 10. There was no attempt to answer any question by any CPIO in any of
these applications. Above all, each CPIO failed to show how he understood that
there was no larger “public interest’,” a division bench of CIC comprising
Information Commissioners Sridhar Acharyulu and Basant Seth held.
The bench
said MPs are required to file a declaration of assets and liabilities with the
Speaker of Lok Sabha and the Chairman of Rajya Sabha.
“The rules to
this effect were made in 2004 under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
These declarations have to be made by MPs within 90 days of taking their seat in
Parliament. The Rajya Sabha rules specify that MPs are required to update their
declarations every year. They are accessible,” it said.
The Bench
said Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act prescribed “public interest” as a
requirement to decide the disclosure of information even though it is exempted.
It said the
CPIO or First Appellate Authority is not just an executive officer in his
office but an “authority” under RTI Act with a responsibility to use his
personal discretion as per law while deciding RTI request.
“The public
interest under section 8(1)(j) requires three conditions to be considered:
absence of relationship with public activity or interest or, possibility of
unwarranted invasion of privacy or, existence of larger public interest.
Language of section 8(1)(j) is very clear ie it demands satisfaction of CPIO,”
it said.
The CIC said
larger public interest has to be examined under RTI Act, public interest
referred to in section 11(1) proviso where public interest in disclosure has to
be outweighed in importance any injury to interest of third party.
Appellant has
a duty to explain ‘public interest’ and CPIO needs to examine the same, it
said.
“The CPIOs
being authorities are under RTI Act, should proceed according to procedure
prescribed under that law and consult each and every third party about whose
ITR-related information is being sought,” the Bench said.
It said there
is nothing on record to show that CPIOs of various wings of respondent
authority have issued notice to all the 20 MPs and they responded, except
regarding two MPs.
“The turn of
CPIOs examining larger public interest did not arise. The Bench directs the
respondents to examine each point of RTI request, issue notices to all third
parties as required under Section 11 in all eight cases, secure responses, duly
consider the larger public interest after giving sufficient opportunity to the
appellants, and decide on information with speaking orders on each point,
within three months from the date of receipt of this order,” it said.
.JPG)
.JPG)
