Personal Information and larger Public interest: Sections 8(1)(j) and 8(2) of the RTI Act:
• Vide RTI dated 31-08-12, Anil Bairwal had sought certain Information claiming copies of Income tax Returns with other documents of Biju Janata Dal for A.Y. 2002-03 to 2011-12.
CPIO/ITO Ward 1(2), Bhubaneswar, vide letter dated 12-09-12, informed the appellant that the information sought related to a third party, their views were sought and the third party had objected to any information being shared. It was pointed out by the party representative that since they do not receive any grant from the government directly or indirectly, u/s. 2(h) of the RTI Act, it is not a “Public Authority” and information regarding the party should not be supplied.
FAA upheld the decision of CPIO and relied on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, [RTIR IV (2012) 216 (SC)], stating that no larger Public Interest is involved. Para of the said decision reads as under:
“14.The details disclosed by a person in his Income Tax Return 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……………………………………”
CIC quoted Paras 38 & 47 of its earlier order of 29-4-2008 wherein Biju Janata Dal was also a party. Same reads as under:
“38.The laws of the land do not make it mandatory for political parties to disclose the sources of their funding, and even less so the manner of expending those funds. In the absence of such laws, the only way a citizen can gain access to the details of funding of political parties is through their Income-tax Returns filed annually with Income-tax authorities. This is about the closest the political parties get to accounting for the sources and the extent of their funding and their expenditure. There is unmistakable public interest in knowing these funding details which would enable the citizen to make an informed choice about the political parties to vote for. The RTI Act emphasises that “democracy requires an informed citizenry” and that transparency of information is vital to flawless functioning of constitutional democracy. It is nobody’s case that, while all organs of the State must exhibit maximum transparency, no such obligation attaches to political parties. Given that political parties influence the exercise of political power; transparency in their organisation, functions and, more particularly, their means of funding is a democratic imperative, and, therefore, is in public interest. Insofar as the Income-tax Returns of political parties contain funding details these are liable for disclosure.”
“47. Thus, information which is otherwise exempt, can still be disclosed if the public interest so warrants. That public interest is unmistakably present is evidenced not only in the context of the pronouncements of the Apex Court but also the recommendations of the National Commission for the Review of the Working of the Constitution and of the Law Commission.”
The Commission then ruled:
“In view of the fact that a larger public interest has been established by the Commission in the judgment referred to above, the disclosure of IT Returns of Biju Janata Dal does not fall in the exemption Clause of section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act. The CPIO is directed to provide the information sought within three weeks of receipt of this order.”
[Anil Bairwal vs. ITO, ward 1(2) and JCIT, Range-I, Bhubaneswar: Decided on 24-12-2013 Citation: RTIR I (2014) 58 (CIC)]
• Gurdev Singh had sought details of the Transfer cases and pending cases since 2005 under GPA/SUB GPA
Vide Order dated 4th July, 2013, CPIO informed the appellant that information sought is not specific in nature and is not available in the compiled form. CPIO further offered an opportunity for inspection.
FAA upheld the decision of CPIO. In the second appeal before the Commission, it decided as under:
“Both sides have presented their arguments. Appellant pleaded for disclosure of this information in the larger public interest as he has alleged that the policy benefits were extended in a most arbitrary fashion through pick-and-choose action and that those who were left out were not given any reasons for having been denied the benefits that were extended to other applicants who had applied along side with them thereby putting them unfairly to great disadvantage. This lack of transparency by the Public Authority in the exercise of its powers, it was argued is contrary to the letter and spirit of the RTI Act and breeds corruption. Commission shares the view that transparency is an essential ingredient for good governance. Decisions of the Public Authorities are required to be taken in the larger public interest and must be uniformly administered in a transparent manner. The present case defies these principles and is couched in the dark shade of secrecy. Therefore, as per the provisions of the section 8(2) of the Act, Commission determines that in this case, the disclosure of information outweighs all arguments made in favour of disproportionate diversion of the scare resources of the Public Authority and under the provisions of section 19(8)(a)(iii) requires the Public Authority through the Chairman, Chandigarh Housing Board to establish adequate infrastructure in terms of computers and manpower so that the information sought by the appellant in his RTI application of 17-06-2013 is compiled and placed on the official website of the CHB before 15-06-2014. Commission has given adequate time for completing this exercise as we accept the contention of the respondents that the information sought is maintained in many separate files and will have to be compiled and collated. Commission will review the compliance of the directions held herein above at a later date which will be intimated separately.”
[Gurdev Singh vs. Chandigarh Housing Board, UT Chandigarh: Decided on 11-12-2013: Citation: RTIR (2014) 51 (CIC)]
• FIEM Industries Ltd.:
FIEM industries Ltd. had challenged before the H.C. the Order of SIC, Haryana and Ors. directing PIO to furnish the information sought by the RTI applicant.
The information sought was details of a raid conducted on the petitioner by the VAT authorities and regarding alleged tax evasions by various companies including the petitioner company.
The petition company relied upon the judgment of the SC, in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. CIC and others.
The Court ruled:
“To my mind the judgment could not be strictly applicable to the facts of the present case.” Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
[FIEM Industries Ltd vs. SIC, Haryana and Ors. Decided by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 18.12.2013: Citation RTIR I (2014)104 (P&H)]
BS/C/2012/000279/3569: RTIR IV (2013) 163 (CIC)]
