Sub: Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act
Following was the information sought by the Appllicant and the reply given by the PIO.
The PIO has refused to give the information claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. An appeal was filed. The PIO (the respondent) stated that third party information could not be disclosed without taking the views of the third party and relied upon the case of Suhash Chakma vs. CIC in W.P.(C) No. 9118 of 2009. The respondent also stated that the present whereabouts of the third parties are not maintained by the Ministry.
The Commission ruled that if the third party’s address could not be located it did not mean the citizen’s right to information would disappear. Section 11 is a procedural requirement that gives third party an opportunity to voice an objection in releasing the information.
The Commission then held that in section 11(1) it is clearly stated that submission of third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information. Section 11(1) dealt with the information ‘which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party’. Thus the procedure of Section 11 comes into effect if the PIO believes that the information exists and is not exempt, and the third party has treated it as confidential. The PIO must send a letter to the third party within 5 days of receipt of the RTI application. It only gives the third party an opportunity to voice its objections to disclosing information. The PIO has to keep these objections in mind and the denial of information can only be on the basis of exemption under Section 8(1) of the RTI act. As per Section 11(3), the PIO has to determine whether the information is exempt or not and inform the appellant and the third party of his decision. If the third party wishes to appeal against the decision of the PIO, he can file an appeal under Section 19 of the Act as per the provision of Section 11(4).
The Commission then explained whether the information sought was exempt u/s 8(1)(j). As per the Commission, two points need to be satisfied for the information to qualify for exemption:
(i) It must be Personal Information.
The phrase ‘disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest’ means that the information must have been given in the course of a public activity.
Various Public authorities in performing their functions routinely ask for ‘personal’ information from citizens, and this is clearly a public activity. When a person applies for a job, or gives information about himself to a Public authority as an employee, or asks for a permission, licence or authorisation or passport, all these are public activities. Also, when a citizen provides information in discharge of a statutory obligation, that too is a public activity.
(ii) To check ‘whether the State invades the privacy of an individual’.
According to the Commission, where the State routinely obtains information from citizens, this information is in relationship to a public activity and will not be an intrusion on privacy.
The Commission noted that the Parliament has not codified the right to privacy so far, hence in balancing the Right to Information of citizens and the individual’s Right to Privacy the citizen’s Right to Information would be given greater weightage. The Supreme Court of India has ruled that citizens have a right to know about charges against candidates for elections as well as details of their assets, since they desire to offer themselves for public service. It is obvious then that those who are public servants cannot claim exemption from disclosure of charges against them or details of their assets. Given our dismal record of mis-governance and rampant corruption which colludes to deny Citizens their essential rights and dignity, it is in the fitness of things that the Citizen’s Right to Information is given greater primacy with regard to privacy.
In view of above, the Commission did not accept the PIO’s contention that information provided by an applicant when applying for passport was exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. [Mr. Anand Narayan Devghare vs. PIO, Regional Passport Office, Mumbai: CIC/SG/ A/2012/000794/18743 dated 4th May 2012.]
