The petitioner, President’s Secretariat, had preferred writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 4th May, 2012 passed by the Central Information Commission, New Delhi, whereby the appeal preferred before it by the respondent had been allowed, and directions were issued to the petitioner, to provide information under the RTI Act sought by the respondent in relation to the donations made by the President from time to time. A direction was also issued to the petitioner to take steps to publish the details regarding the donations made i.e. the names of the recipients of the donations, their addresses and the amount of donation in each case, on the website of the President’s Secretariat at the earliest.
Information in relation to the donations made by the President from time to time was not disclosed by the President’s Secretariat by invoking section 8(1)(j) of the Act i.e. by treating the information as personal information, the disclosure of which was stated to be not in the public interest. CIC rejected the said defence of the petitioner and directed the disclosure of the information.
The submission of learned ASG Sh. A. S. Chandhiok firstly, was that the CIC has equated donations made by the President with subsidy, which is not the case. It was also submitted that the learned CIC has not dealt with the petitioner’s submissions founded upon section 8(1)(j) of the Act. It was also argued that the right to privacy of third parties would be breached, in case such disclosure is made. In any event, the right of third parties/recipients of the donation, to oppose disclosure by resorting to section 11 has not been dealt with. It was argued that the matter requires reconsideration, and the petition should be admitted for further hearing by the court.
A perusal of the impugned order, showed that the donations made by the President are out of public funds. Public funds are those funds which are collected by the State from the citizens by imposition of taxes, duties, cess, services charges, etc. These funds are held by the State in trust, for being utilised for the benefit of the general public.
The reliance was placed by the petitioner on the earlier decision of the CIC dated 18-12-2009, pertaining to the disclosure of information under the Act in relation to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund. Commission had held that it has no relevance to the facts of the present case, assuming for the sake of argument that the said decision of the CIC takes the correct view. The Delhi High Court noted that it was concerned with the disclosure vis-à-vis the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund, and hence the said issue was not dealt in the present writ petition. The Court further noted: “In any event, unlike in the case of the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund, in the present case, the donations have been made by the Hon’ble President of India from the tax payers’ money. Every citizen is entitled to know how the money, which is collected by the State from him by exaction has been utilised. Merely because the person making the donations happens to be the President of India, is no ground to withhold the said information. The Hon’ble President of India is not immune from the application of the Act. What is important is, that it is a public fund which is being donated by the President, and not his/her private fund placed at his/her disposal for being distributed/donated amongst the needy and deserving persons.”
The learned ASG had submitted that the disclosure of information with regard to the donations made by the President would impinge on the privacy of the persons receiving the donations, as their financial distress, other circumstances, and need would become public. The Court responded:
“I do not find any merit in the aforesaid submission of the learned ASG. Firstly, I may note that the learned CIC has directed disclosure of some basic information, such as the names of the recipients of the donations, their addresses and the amount of donation made in each case. Further details i.e. the facts of each case, and justification for making donation, have not been directed to be provided. Even if further details are sought by a querist in relation to any specific instance of donation made by the President, the same would have to be dealt with in terms of the Act. There could be instances where the entire details may not be disclosed by resorting to section 8, 10 and 11 of the Act. However, it cannot be said that mere disclosure of the names, addresses and the amounts disbursed to each of the donees would infringe the protection provided to them u/s. 8(1)(j) of the Act.”
“The donations made by the President of India cannot be said to relate to personal information of the President. It cannot be said that the disclosure of the information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of, either the President of India, or the recipient of the donation. A person who approaches the President, seeking a donation, can have no qualms in the disclosure of his/her name, and address, the amount received by him/her as donation or even the circumstance which compelled him or her to approach the First Citizen of the country to seek a donation. Such acts of generosity and magnanimity done by the President should be placed in the public domain as they would enhance the stature of the office of the President of India. In that sense, the disclosure of the information would be in the public interest as well.”
“The submission of Mr. Chandhiok that the learned CIC has confused donations with subsidy is not correct. The CIC has consciously noted that donations are being made by the President from the public fund. It is this feature which has led the learned CIC to observe that donations from out of public fund cannot be treated differently from subsidy given by the Government to the citizens under various welfare schemes. It cannot be said that the CIC has misunderstood donations as subsidies.”
“For all the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same. The interim order stands vacated.”
[President’s Secretariat vs. Nitish Kumar Tripathi W.P. (C ) 3382/2012 dated 14-06-2012. Citation- RTIR IV (2012) 92 (Delhi) delivered by Vipin Sanghi. J]
