Live Law: Delhi: Wednesday, 14 August 2024.
The Delhi High Court has
held that withholding the names of the institutes or universities attended by
current employees of a public authority is justified under Section 8(1)(j) of
the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). This is because disclosure of
such information does not serve a broader public interest and further infringes
on individual's privacy.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela were considering a letters patent appeal against the order of the Single Judge Bench, which upheld the decision of the Central Information Commissioner (CIC).
The appellant had filed an RTI application in 2014 seeking information from the Power Finance Corporation Limited (respondent no. 2) about their (i) recruitment policies (ii) budget for executives and (iii) total number of executives recruited during last five years, with details of their name, qualifications, name of the passing institute and their present posting in the corporation.
The respondent-corporation in 2015 provided information on (i) and (ii). With respect to (iii), it provided some information on names, present postings and designations of the executives but withheld details about the qualifications and educational institutions of the executives.
It withheld the information citing Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, which provides that information can be withheld if it disproportionately diverts the resources of a public authority.
Appellant's appeals to the Appellate Authority and CIC were rejected.
CIC held that the information sought by the appellant is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, as it did not serve any public interest and would infringe privacy of individuals. However, it directed the corporation to provide the information relating to educational qualification of the executives.
The High Court was of the view that the query of the appellant was vague and that the appellant seemed to be indulging in 'fishing and roving inquiry' into areas not relevant to him.
The Court noted that the repeated RTI applications filed by the appellant were a result of dismissal of appellant's younger brother from the respondent-corporation's service in 2012. It remarked that this indicates that the application filed by appellant was not bona fide.
It observed that the appellant could not demonstrate any larger public interest in disclosure of the information sought. It noted that disclosure of the information would have caused unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individuals.
On CIC's order, the Court stated that upon examination, CIC concluded that the information sought was exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act. CIC determined that releasing the information would infringe on the privacy rights of third parties, thus falling under the exemption outlined in Section 8(1)(j).
The Court held that CIC was correct in its determination. It stated that information regarding the names of the institutions was withheld as it was personal to the concerned individuals.
“…the disclosure of such information was clearly not in the larger public interest and the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act has been correctly invoked by the CIC and rightly upheld by the learned Single Judge.”
It thus upheld the order of the Single Judge and dismissed the petition.
(Click Here to Read/DownloadOrder)
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela were considering a letters patent appeal against the order of the Single Judge Bench, which upheld the decision of the Central Information Commissioner (CIC).
The appellant had filed an RTI application in 2014 seeking information from the Power Finance Corporation Limited (respondent no. 2) about their (i) recruitment policies (ii) budget for executives and (iii) total number of executives recruited during last five years, with details of their name, qualifications, name of the passing institute and their present posting in the corporation.
The respondent-corporation in 2015 provided information on (i) and (ii). With respect to (iii), it provided some information on names, present postings and designations of the executives but withheld details about the qualifications and educational institutions of the executives.
It withheld the information citing Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, which provides that information can be withheld if it disproportionately diverts the resources of a public authority.
Appellant's appeals to the Appellate Authority and CIC were rejected.
CIC held that the information sought by the appellant is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, as it did not serve any public interest and would infringe privacy of individuals. However, it directed the corporation to provide the information relating to educational qualification of the executives.
The High Court was of the view that the query of the appellant was vague and that the appellant seemed to be indulging in 'fishing and roving inquiry' into areas not relevant to him.
The Court noted that the repeated RTI applications filed by the appellant were a result of dismissal of appellant's younger brother from the respondent-corporation's service in 2012. It remarked that this indicates that the application filed by appellant was not bona fide.
It observed that the appellant could not demonstrate any larger public interest in disclosure of the information sought. It noted that disclosure of the information would have caused unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individuals.
On CIC's order, the Court stated that upon examination, CIC concluded that the information sought was exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act. CIC determined that releasing the information would infringe on the privacy rights of third parties, thus falling under the exemption outlined in Section 8(1)(j).
The Court held that CIC was correct in its determination. It stated that information regarding the names of the institutions was withheld as it was personal to the concerned individuals.
“…the disclosure of such information was clearly not in the larger public interest and the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act has been correctly invoked by the CIC and rightly upheld by the learned Single Judge.”
It thus upheld the order of the Single Judge and dismissed the petition.
(Click Here to Read/DownloadOrder)
.JPG)
.JPG)
