Personal information can't be revealed under RTI: Information Commission

Greater Kashmir: Srinagar: Tuesday, June 04, 2019.

The State Information Commission has disposed a case wherein the information seeker had sought personal information of employees from the Public Information Officer.

The appellant had filed the 2nd appeal before the State Information Commission (SIC) against the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and Public Information Officer (PIO) Drug and Food Control Organisation, Srinagar. The appeal has been filed on the grounds that the PIO has failed to submit the information stating “the information sought cannot be provided as it relates to the personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.”

On being denied the information, the information seeker filed the first appeal before the FAA, but he again failed to decide the appeal.

The appellant approached the commission, at last, and asked the commission to direct the PIO Drug and Food Control organisation, Srinagar to provide him the information.

The commission asked the appellant to specify the names of the employees whose information he requires “so that the PIO can provide the Information within the permissible limits under the provisions of the J&K Right to Information Act,” the order reads.

The appellant, while responding to the order of the commission, had specified names of six employees Irfana (Assistant Drug Controller), Imtiyaz (Drug Inspector), Waseem (Drug Inspector), Younis (ACR Wholesale) and Parvaiz.

But the PIO while answering the questions of the appellant had said, “This division doesn’t have any Assistant Drug Controller as Irfana, this division has many Imtiyaz who are working as Drug Inspector, so please specify complete name.”

The PIO further states, “This division has many Shahnawaz who are working as Drug Inspector, so please specify complete name, the designation of Younis is not ACR Wholesale, Parvaiz has already attained superannuation and retired from the department.”

The appellant has sought photocopies of service book of all employees of Drug & Food Control Department, the information as to how much property are in the names of the said employees and their family members, copies of tax deduction certificates from last ten years, copies of transfer orders and copies of their qualification certificates.

State Information Commissioner, M Ashraf Mir, while disposing of the case, has stated, “The expression ‘information’ has been interpreted and deciphered by the Supreme Court and various other High Courts and also by the Central Information Commission in numerous judgments including CBSE & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay &Ors (SC)”, “Khanapuram Gandhia Vs. Administrative Officer (SC), Dr. Celsa Pinto Vs. Goa State Information Commission (Bombay HC) and Subrata Guha Ray Vs. CPIO (CIC), to name a few, where it has been held that all and sundry information cannot be asked for by an applicant under the RTI Act.”

Moreover, the order issued by the commissioner reads, “In the case of Girish Ramchandra Despande Vs CIC & Others [SLP (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012], the Supreme Court has further held that the information relating to tax deduction details, assets and liabilities, moveable and immoveable properties, performance of employees, leave details and transfer details are personal information and matters primarily between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information.”

The Supreme Court has further held that, “disclosure of such information has no relation with any public activity or public interest and on the other hand, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the concerned employees.”

In view of the settled position of law, “the information sought by the appellant through his RTI application dated 16-10-2018 cannot be provided by the PIO as the same amounts to personal information of the concerned employees. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly disposed of without any order or direction,” the order states.