Verdictum: Kohima: Friday, 26 July 2024.
The Delhi High Court upheld
the Central Information Commission's (CIC) decision that dismissed an appeal of
a son seeking information about a bank locker of his late father, observing
that such information was not in the larger public interest as required under
Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act.
The Court stated that a bank cannot play the role of an adjudicator in pending disputes in respect of the bank locker between the legal heirs of a late father. Moreover, the Bench explained that the subjective satisfaction of the Competent Authority of “larger public interest” justifying such disclosure was necessary before any such disclosure was made available.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “We have also considered the issue of refusal of information on the grounds of lack of larger public interest…Apparently, the appellant appears to be seeking some information relating to the bank locker held by the late father, pending disputes between the legal heirs and there cannot possibly be any public interest in that, much less any larger public interest. The words “larger public interest” would, in our view, have an impact on a broad section of the society and not individual interests or conflicts.”
The appellant appeared in person, while Advocate Arun Aggarwal represented the respondents.
The appellant had filed an online Right to Information (RTI) application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The appellant attempted to obtain information about a bank locker held by his late father at the Bank of Baroda. The bank and the CIC had previously rejected the RTI request relying on Sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act pertaining to fiduciary relationships.
“It is evident that Section 8(1) is a non obstante clause and is an exception to the obligation to disclose information which is sought by a citizen from any institution, covered within the provisions of the Act. It is trite that a non obstante clause would ordinarily have an overriding effect on the remaining provisions of the said Act,” the Court remarked.
The Bench stated that disclosure of private information can be refused by the Competent Authority. The Court explained that Sub-Section (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act was an exemption from disclosure of information which had no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual unless the Competent Authority was satisfied that the larger public interest justifies such disclosure.
Consequently, the Bench held that “the appellant has ample efficacious and alternate remedy to summon any such information in the court of law, as and when the need arises, in accordance with law. Thus, the refusal for divulging the information so sought cannot be faulted. Moreover, the fiduciary relationship existed between the bank and the late father of the appellant alone.”
(Click here to read/downloadthe Judgment)
The Court stated that a bank cannot play the role of an adjudicator in pending disputes in respect of the bank locker between the legal heirs of a late father. Moreover, the Bench explained that the subjective satisfaction of the Competent Authority of “larger public interest” justifying such disclosure was necessary before any such disclosure was made available.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “We have also considered the issue of refusal of information on the grounds of lack of larger public interest…Apparently, the appellant appears to be seeking some information relating to the bank locker held by the late father, pending disputes between the legal heirs and there cannot possibly be any public interest in that, much less any larger public interest. The words “larger public interest” would, in our view, have an impact on a broad section of the society and not individual interests or conflicts.”
The appellant appeared in person, while Advocate Arun Aggarwal represented the respondents.
The appellant had filed an online Right to Information (RTI) application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The appellant attempted to obtain information about a bank locker held by his late father at the Bank of Baroda. The bank and the CIC had previously rejected the RTI request relying on Sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act pertaining to fiduciary relationships.
“It is evident that Section 8(1) is a non obstante clause and is an exception to the obligation to disclose information which is sought by a citizen from any institution, covered within the provisions of the Act. It is trite that a non obstante clause would ordinarily have an overriding effect on the remaining provisions of the said Act,” the Court remarked.
The Bench stated that disclosure of private information can be refused by the Competent Authority. The Court explained that Sub-Section (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act was an exemption from disclosure of information which had no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual unless the Competent Authority was satisfied that the larger public interest justifies such disclosure.
Consequently, the Bench held that “the appellant has ample efficacious and alternate remedy to summon any such information in the court of law, as and when the need arises, in accordance with law. Thus, the refusal for divulging the information so sought cannot be faulted. Moreover, the fiduciary relationship existed between the bank and the late father of the appellant alone.”
(Click here to read/downloadthe Judgment)
.JPG)
.JPG)
