[In the H.C. of Uttarakhand: writ petition No.1814 of 2006 decided on 23-04-2013: Uttaranchal Public Services Commission vs. Chief Information Commissioner & Ors: Citation: RTI III (2013)82]
- Section 8(1)(d) & (j) of the RTI Act :
Information sought:
i) To provide the criteria applied in the selection procedure of the candidates to the post of Lecturer-Biology in Inter College.
ii) How many candidates appeared in the written examination for the post of lecturer Biology in Intermediate College and how many candidates were selected and how many candidates have appeared for interview before the Interview Board?
iii) To provide the details of the marks obtained by the selected candidates in the written test along with their marks in the interview and the details of their experience, educational qualification etc. with their preference/marks obtained by them.
iv) To give the details of the marks obtained by Mohd. Asif Tyagi (129639) in written test interview, educational qualification and experience etc. for the post of Lecturer-Biology.
PIO gave information on (i) & (ii) above. As regards information under (iii) & (iv), same were rejected on the ground that the said information cannot be provided in view of the provisions of section 8(1)(d) & 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. FAA dismissed the appeal. Hence, Uttaranchal Public Service Commission (UPSC) filed a writ petition before High Court of Uttarakhand.
The Court stated:
So far as the information on point no.3 is concerned, it is stated in para-10 of the writ petition that the respondent no.2 (Shri Jakir) has sought information with respect to one candidate Mohd. Asif Tyagi under the RTI Act. It is further stated in the writ petition that respondent no. 2 was neither the candidate in the screening examination nor in the interview. Further, as per provisions of section 8(1)(j) of the Act, the information sought by the respondent no.2 with respect to Mohd. Asif Tyagi, comes under the definition of third party as per the provisions of RTI Act and the provisions of sections 8(1)(d) clearly provides that the disclosure of such information would harm the competitive position of third party and the same has been exempted from disclosure under RTI Act.
The Court held:
By a perusal of the information sought by respondent no.2, it reveals that the information sought is of a general nature and the marks obtained in a competitive examination cannot be held to be an intellectual property of an individual. The petitioner cannot deny the information as to how many marks have been obtained by Asif Tyagi and the other selected candidates and their educational qualification and experience. In my opinion, this information is not covered u/s. 8(1)(j) of the Act and the learned Chief Information Commissioner has rightly directed the petitioner to give information on point nos.3 and 4.
For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
[Decision of High Court of Madras in the Registrar general, High Court of Madras, Chennai vs. K.Elango & Anr: W.P.No.20485 of 2012 And M.P.No.1 of 2012 decided on 17-04-2013 Citation: RTIR III (2013) 103 (Madras)]
• In this case The Tamil Nadu Information Commission passed an order by not accepting the argument “unwarranted invasion of privacy of individuals” and allowed the appeal by directing the Registrar General, High Court of Madras to furnish the details sought for by K. Elango.
To start with the High Court of Madras noted:
It is to be borne in mind that under the Right to Information Act, 2005 an authority has a rudimentary function to perform either to furnish the information or deny the information. As a matter of fact, there is no specific Article in the Constitution of India which provides for the citizens right to know. However, Article 19(1)(a) provides for freedom of thought and expression which indirectly includes right to obtain information. Further, Article 21 guarantees right to life and personal liberty to citizens. Undoubtedly, Right to Life is incomplete if basic human right viz., ‘Right to Know’ is not included within its umbrage.
K. Elango had sought from PIO of the High Court, Madras following information:
1. How may Subordinate Judges are there in service in the state of Tamil Nadu? The district-wise list may be furnished to me as per the hierarchy.
2. How many employees are serving in the judicial department in the whole of Tamil Nadu (including the Government servants on deputation)?
3. How many judicial officers, police officers and staffs are working in the Vigilance Department of the registry of Madras High Court?
4. Does your vigilance department have any branches in the district so as to receive the complaint from the general public against the judicial officer and court staffs?
5. Does your registry have any tie-up or coordination with the office of Vigilance and Anticorruption, Rajaannamalai Puram, Chennai 28 to trap the judicial officers or court staffs on the basis of the complaints from the affected persons?
6. Does your registry have a special team for trapping the corrupt judicial officers and court staffs?
7. Between 2001 to 2010, how many complaints have been received by your Registry and Vigilance Department, kindly give complaint-wise break-up figure (that is how many complaints against DJ, ADDLJ, SJ, DMC, FTC Judges, Magistrates and Court staffs)?
8. How many complaints ended in dismissal, suspension, issuance of memo and dropping of the case and conviction between the said 2001 to 2010?
9. Between 2001 to 2010 how many complaints against High Court staffs have been received relating to bribe and the fate of those complaints?
Both the sides in this case made elaborate submission and also cited number of courts’ decisions. The Court also cited number of courts’ decisions and further stated:
• In the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta and others vs. President of India and others, [AIR 1982 Supreme Court 149], it is held that ‘the Right to know has been given a constitutional status by treating it as a part of speech and expression and thereby bringing this right within Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.’
• It will be quite in the fitness of things to recall the Golden words of Thomas Jefferson, who rightly said that ‘Information is the Currency of Democracy’.
• In the words of Amartya Sen, ‘the Right to Information Act, 2005 is a momentous engagement with the possibilities of freedom.’ [vide Lawz January 2008 at page 40 special page 41]
• Befittingly, we recall the observation of Lord Goff in the decision Attorney General vs. Guardian Newspapers Limited and others(No 2) 1990 1 A.P. at page 109 which runs as follows:
“Although the basis of Law’s protection of confidence is that there is a Law, nevertheless the public interest may be outweighed by some other countervailing public interest which favours disclosure.”
• It is to be pointed out that the personal information and the information between persons in fiduciary relationship are exempted from disclosure under the Right to Information Act. Also, ‘Confidence’ may be outweighed by public interest in the matter of such disclosure.
The Court then concluded:
• On a careful consideration of respective contentions and on going through the contents of the application dated 01-11-2010 filed by the 1st Respondent/Applicant this Court is of the considered view that the information sought for by him in Serial Nos. 1 to 9 pertaining to the internal delicate functioning/administration of the High Court besides the same relate to invasion of privacy of respective individuals if the information so asked for is furnished and more so, the information sought for has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Moreover, the information sought for by the 1st Respondent/Applicant, is not to a fuller extent open to public domain. It added further, if the information sought for by the 1st Respondent/Applicant, is divulged, then, it will open the floodgates/Pandora’s Box compelling the Petitioner/High Court to supply the information sought for by the concerned Requisitionists as a matter of routine, without any rhyme or reason/restrictions as the case may be. Therefore, some self restrictions are to be imposed in regards to the supply of information in this regards. As a matter of fact, the Notings, Jottings, Administrative Letters, Intricate Internal Discussions, Deliberations etc. of the Petitioners/High Court cannot be brought u/s. 2(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, in considered opinion of this Court. Also that, if the information relating to Serial Nos.1 to 9 mentioned in the application of the 1st Respondent/Applicant dated 01-11-2010 is directed to be furnished or supplied with, then, certainly, it will impede and hinder the regular, smooth and proper functioning of the Institution viz. High Court (an independent authority under the Constitution of India, free from Executive or Legislature). As such, a Saner Counsel/Balancing Act is to be adopted in matters relating to the application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, so that an adequate freedom and inbuilt safeguards can be provided to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of High Court [competent authority and public authority as per section 2(e)(iii) and 2(h)(a) of the Act 22 of 2005] in exercising his discretionary powers either to supply the information or to deny the information, as prayed for by the Applicants/Requisitionists concerned.”
• “Apart from the above, if the information requested by the 1st Respondent/Applicant, based on his letter dated 01-11- 2010, is supplied with, then, it will have an adverse impact on the regular and normal, serene functioning of the High Court’s Office on the impact on the Administrative side. Therefore, we come to an irresistible conclusion that the 1st Respondent/Applicant is not entitled to be supplied with the information/details sought for him, in his Application dated 01-11-2010 addressed to the Public Information Officer of the High Court, Madras under the provision of the Right to Information Act. Even on the ground of (i) maintaining confidentiality; (ii) based on the reason that the private or personal information is exempted from disclosure u/s. 8(1)(j) of the Act,2005; and (iii) also u/s. 8(1)(e) of the Act in lieu of fiduciary relationship maintained by the High Court, the request of the 1st Respondent/Applicant, cannot be acceded to by this Court. Also, we opine that the 1st Respondent/Applicant’s requests, suffer from want of bona fides (notwithstanding the candid fact that Section 6 of the Right to Information Act does not either overtly or covertly refers to the ‘concept of Locus’)”
• To put it differently, if the information sought for by the 1st Respondent/Applicant, is divulged or furnished by the Office of the High Court (on administrative side), then, the secrecy and privacy of the internal working process may get jeopardised, besides the furnishing of said information would result in invasion of unwarranted and uncalled for privacy of individuals concerned. Even the disclosure of information pertaining to departmental enquiries in respect of Disciplinary Actions initiated against the Judicial Officers/Officials of the Subordinate Court or the High Court will affect the facile, smooth and independent running of the administration of the High Court, under the Constitution of India. Moreover, as per section 2(e) read with section 28 of the Right to Information Act, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court is empowered to frame rules to carry out the provisions of the Act. In this regards, we point out that the ‘Madras High Court Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2007’ have been framed and as amended in regard to the Name and Designation of the Officers mentioned therein, the same has come into force from 18-11-2008.
• In the upshot of quantitative and qualitative discussions mentioned supra, Information Commission, Chennai, to prevent an aberration of Justice and to promote substantial cause of Justice, this Court interferes with the order dated 10-01-2012 in Case No.10447/ Enquirt/A/11 passed by the 2nd Respondent/ Tamil Nadu Information Commission, Chennai and sets aside the same, to secure the ends of Justice Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No. costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition Is closed.
