Bar and Bench: Chandigarh: Friday, 21 February 2025.
The State opposed the plea and said that the personal information of an employee cannot be given as the same is barred under provisions of RTI Act.
The Punjab and Haryana High
Court recently expressed surprise at the case of a man who had sought
information about his own name and address from his wife’s employer under the
Right to Information (RTI) Act [Lucky Kumar vs Punjab State Information Commission
and others].
Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi noted that the petitioner Lucky Kumar had not sought any information about the official duties of his wife but his own name and address.
“The information asked for was with regard to the name of the husband of one of the employee, namely Veena Kumari and during the hearing, the Court has been apprised by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is actually the husband of Veena Kumari. Nothing has come on record as to why the husband is seeking the information from the Department about the name and address of the husband of Veena Kumari that is to say that the husband is seeking details about himself, which is surprising,” the Court observed.
The counsel representing the
petitioner earlier submitted that the government department had failed to
provide “the personal information of one of the employees”.
Opposing the plea, the State submitted that the personal information of an employee cannot be given as the same is barred under provisions of RTI Act.
The Court agreed with the State’s argument. Seeking personal details of an employee relates to the privacy of the employee concerned, it said.
“Keeping in view the fact that personal information is not to be made available under 2005 Act, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court,” the it added while dismissing the plea.
Advocates Meena Bansal and Navjot Kaur represented the petitioner.
Deputy Advocate General Akshita Chauhan represented the State of Punjab.
[Read Judgment]
The State opposed the plea and said that the personal information of an employee cannot be given as the same is barred under provisions of RTI Act.
Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi noted that the petitioner Lucky Kumar had not sought any information about the official duties of his wife but his own name and address.
“The information asked for was with regard to the name of the husband of one of the employee, namely Veena Kumari and during the hearing, the Court has been apprised by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is actually the husband of Veena Kumari. Nothing has come on record as to why the husband is seeking the information from the Department about the name and address of the husband of Veena Kumari that is to say that the husband is seeking details about himself, which is surprising,” the Court observed.
Opposing the plea, the State submitted that the personal information of an employee cannot be given as the same is barred under provisions of RTI Act.
The Court agreed with the State’s argument. Seeking personal details of an employee relates to the privacy of the employee concerned, it said.
“Keeping in view the fact that personal information is not to be made available under 2005 Act, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court,” the it added while dismissing the plea.
Advocates Meena Bansal and Navjot Kaur represented the petitioner.
Deputy Advocate General Akshita Chauhan represented the State of Punjab.
[Read Judgment]
.JPG)
.JPG)
