Personal Information, section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005
CPIO vide letter dated 21.12.2010 stated that information relating to PAN and other information relating to PAN such as address, documents submitted as proof of identity and address is personal information of the PAN holder and subject to confidentiality u/s. 138 of IT Act. Moreover, the information submitted by applicant along with PAN application form is held by the department in a fiduciary capacity and is of a personal nature, hence exempt from disclosure u/s. 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants disclosure of such information. The CPIO also quoted several CIC orders including the case of Ms. Anumeha dated 29.04.2008.
Decision:
The information sought is of a personal nature. CPIO had issued a notice u/s. 11(1) and the Globe Transport Corporation had urged the CPIO not to share any personal information with the appellant. The Commission agrees with the stand taken by the CPIO/AA that the information sought is exempt from disclosure u/s. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
[H K Sharma vs Income Tax Department, New Delhi: CIC/DS/A/2011/001229/RM: Decision dated 08-06-2012]
Facts:
Vide RTI application dated 14-10-2010, the appellant had sought certified copies of IT returns and supporting documents filed by Hrishikesh Gaderia during the last 20 years.
CPIO vide his letter dated 11-11-2010 informed the appellant that a notice u/s. 11(1) had been served on Shri Gaderia, who had opposed sharing of any information pertaining to his IT returns etc. Shri Gaderia had submitted that “the applicant has no right to demand any personal information or any information relating to his business. The information in respect of his business, insurance paid and information in respect of taxes paid is confidential and personal in nature and hence may not be supplied to the applicant, as there will be heavy financial and business loss, if this information is supplied to the applicant or to any third person”. The CPIO held that information furnished to the IT department is strictly in trust, being in fiduciary capacity and no public interest is involved. In view of the above, the CPIO denied information u/s. 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j).
Decision:
In the case of Milap Choraria dated 15-06.2009, a Full Bench of the CIC had upheld the decision of the CPIO and AA in holding that the Income Tax Returns are ‘personal information’ exempted from disclosure u/s. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In the instant case, the AA has correctly applied exemption u/s. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act from disclosure of information. The decision of the AA is therefore upheld.
[Farid Shaikh vs Income Tax Department, Thane: CIC /DS/A/2011/001338/RM: Decision dated 21.06.2012]
Facts:
Applicant submitted RTI application dated 31st May 2011 before the CPIO, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Aliganj, Lucknow to obtain information broadly through five points pertaining to time gap between date of issue of policy bond and date of transfer of the policy bond to the TPA along with copy of the agreement between Company and the TPA.
Decision
After hearing both parties and on perusal of the facts on record the Commission directed as follows:
Point 1: With reference to the information sought under this point by the appellant, we find that it is necessary to strike a fine balance between disclosure of information in larger public interest and simultaneously ensure that the privacy of the policy holder is protected as per the provisions of section 8(1)(j). Therefore, Commission directs the CPIO to provide the appellant with the total number of Mediclaim policies which were dispatched to the TPA after one week of the date of issue.
Point 2: Respondent to provide the appellant with a copy of the agreement between United India Insurance Co. and E-Meditak (TPA) Services Ltd., Gurgaon.
Point 3: Appellant insists on having specific information and is not satisfied with the term “immediately”. Accordingly, respondent is directed to provide the appellant with copy of the Company’s rule governing this issue.
Information as above to be provided within one week of the order.
Commission is satisfied that the subject matter of this RTI application pertains to an issue of larger public interest in that, it touches upon that moment in the life of the insured when he is suffering from ill health and requires urgent support from the umbrella provided to him through the Mediclaim policy taken by him. Therefore, under the provisions of section 4, section 8(2) and section 25(5) of the RTI Act, Commission recommends to CMD, Head Office, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai to give directions to all Branch Managers to put up on the Company’s website the following information:
i) Number of the Mediclaim policies (no names are required to be given).
ii) Date of issue of Mediclaim Policy Bond.
iii) Date of transfer of the said policy bond to the TPA.
CPIO, Head Office is directed to follow up on this matter. Compliance be done by 16th August 2012. Such disclosure will undoubtedly strengthen the safety net to the insured and also cement the relationship of trust between the Insurance Company and insured, thereby strengthening the foundation of the Insurance Industry. Since this is a matter of larger public interest, using this as test case, Commission will review compliance of this order on 28.8.2012 at 3.00 PM at NIC Video conferencing, Room No. 110, 1st Floor, Yojana Bhavan, No 9, Sarojini Naidu Marg, Lucknow-22 6001 (UP), Contact Officer Mr Diwan Singh, Scientist-D and Contact Nos: 0522-2238059/2298822/2298823 on which date respondent CPIO is directed to appear before the Commission via video conferencing.
[Dr Anshu Agrawal vs United India Insurance Co Ltd: CIC/DS/A/2011/003245: Decision dated 28.06.2012]
Facts:
The Petitioner had submitted an application on 27.8.2008 before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour, Government of India) calling for various details relating to third respondent, (i.e. Mr. Lute) who was employed as an Enforcement Officer in Sub-Regional Office, Akola, now working in the State of Madhya Pradesh. As many as 15 queries were made to which the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur gave the following reply on 15.9.2008:
“As to Point No.1: Copy of appointment order of Shri A.B. Lute, is in three pages. You have sought the details of salary in respect of Shri A.B. Lute, which relates to personal information, the disclosures of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of individual, hence denied as per the RTI provision u/s. 8(1) (j) of the Act.
As to Point 2: Copy of order of granting Enforcement Officer Promoting to Shri A. B. Lute, is in 3 Number. Details of salary to the post along with statutory and other deductions of Mr Lute is denied to provide, as per RTI provisions u/s. 8(1)(j) for the reason’s mentioned above
As to Point No. 3: All the transfer orders of Shri A. B. Lute, are in 13 Number. Salary details is rejected.
As to Point No. 4: The copies of memo, show cause notice, censure issued to Mr Lute, are not being provided on the ground that it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and has no relationship to any public activity or interest.
As Point No. 5: Copy of EPF (Staff & Conditions) Rules 1962 is in 60 pages.
As Point No. 6: Copy of return of assets and liabilities in respect of Mr. Lute cannot be provided.
As to Point No. 7: Details of investment and other related details are rejected.
As to Point No. 8: Copy of report of item wise and value wise details of gifts accepted by Mr. Lute is rejected.
As to Point No. 9: Copy of details of movable, immovable properties of Mr Lute, the request to provide the same is rejected.
As Point No. 10, 11& 12 are not relevant, are not covered here.
As to Point No. 13: Certified True copy of complete enquiry proceeding initiated against Mr. Lute – It would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individuals and has no relationship to any public activity or interest.
As to Point No. 14: It would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individuals and has no relationship to any public activity or interest.
As to Point 15: Certified true copy of second show cause notice – would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individuals and has no relationship to any public activity or interest.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the CIC. The CIC passed the order on 18.6.2009, the operative portion of the order reads as under:
“The question for consideration is whether the aforesaid information sought by the Appellant can be treated as ‘personal information’ as defined in clause (j) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act. It may be pertinent to mention that this issue came up before the Full Bench of the Commission in Appeal No.CIC/ AT/A/2008/000628 (Milap Choraria v. Central Board of Direct Taxes) and the Commission vide its decision dated 15.6.2009 held that “the Income Tax return have been rightly held to be personal information exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act by the CPIO and the Appellate Authority, and the appellant herein has not been able to establish that a larger public interest would be served by disclosure of this information. This logic would hold good as far as the ITRs of Shri Lute is concerned. I would like to further observe that the information which has been denied to the appellant essentially falls in two parts – (i) relating to the personal matters pertaining to his services career; and (ii) Shri Lute’s assets & liabilities, movable and immovable properties and other financial aspects. I have no hesitation in holding that this information also qualifies to be the ‘personal information’ as defined in clause (j) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act and the appellant has not been able to convince the Commission that disclosure thereof is in larger public interest.”
The CIC, after holding so, directed the second respondent to disclose the information at paragraphs 1, 2, 3 (only posting details), 5, 10, 11, 12, 13 (only copies of the posting orders) to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. Further, it was held that the information sought for with regard to the other queries did not qualify for disclosure.
Aggrieved by the CIC’s said order, the petitioner filed a writ petition No.4221 of 2009, which came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge and the court dismissed the same vide order dated 16.2.2010. The matter was taken up by way of Letters Patent Appeal No.358 of 2011 before the Division Bench and the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.12. 2011. Against the said order, this special leave peti-tion has been filed. Supreme Court passed the following order:
“We are, in this case, primarily concerned with the scope and interpretation to clauses (e), (g) and (j) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
We are in agreement with the CIC and the Courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/ officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwar-ranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed, but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right”.
“The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless it involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information”.
“The petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual u/s. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act”.
“We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition. Hence, the same is dismissed”.
[Girish Deshpande vs CIC and others: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No 27734 of 2012: Order dated 03.10.2012]
