Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta of Delhi has sought information regarding matters relating to the income tax of eight parties: (a) Three limited companies including Escorts Ltd (b) Three centers of Escorts Heart Institutes & Research, and (c) Mr. Rajan Nanda and Dr. Naresh Trehan.
Both the PIO and FAA refused to grant information, holding that the information related to third parties, and the third parties, in reply to the notice issued to them, had strongly objected the disclosure of information relating to their income tax records.
According to the PIO, the applicant was not able to substantiate as to what the overriding public interest in disclosing the information relating to third parties is, and that unless the case of public interest is established, the disclosure would lead to an invasion of privacy of the assessees.
It was easy for the Commission to take the decision that clauses (b)(d), (e) and (h) do not apply to this case. The said clauses cover (b) Information forbidden to be published by any court of law, etc. (d) Information which is in the nature of trade secrets, intellectual property, etc. (e) Information held in a fiduciary relationship, etc. (h) Information which would impede the process of investigation, etc.
However, as to applicability of clause (j), the ‘order’ discusses the issue in detail and takes a view contrary to the view taken by many earlier decisions of the Commission. The said clause 8 (1)(j) provides the following: Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information, which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relation to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
As the subject matter of this case is of interest to the profession and as it is a landmark decision, I reproduce this part of the decision almost completely:
“The final exemption claimed by the Department as in the case of Dr. Naresh Trehan and three other third parties is under the Section 8(1)(j). The three other third parties are the Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, Delhi, Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, Chandigarh, and Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre Ltd. Section 8(1)(j) is with regard to personal information and, therefore, it can only be claimed by natural persons and not by corporate entities. The three institutes cannot claim to have ‘personal’ information. There is a difference between having a personality, i.e., a legal personality, and owning ‘personal information’. Personal information is information relating to a natural person, not a legal person. Words in a law should normally be given, including the meanings, in common language. In common language, we would ascribe the adjective ‘personal’ to be an attribute, which applies to an individual and not to an institution or a corporate body. From this, it flows that ‘personal’ cannot be related to institutions, organisations or corporates. Hence Section 8(1)(j) cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organisations or corporates. Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that Section 8(1)(j) cannot be relied on by these three third parties, as they are not natural persons.
With regard to the information relating to Dr. Naresh Trehan, it has been argued by his representative that the information sought is personal as it contains personal financial information of the assessee, including various assets, income and expenditure and the disclosure of this information has no relationship with any public activity or interest. It has been alleged that the information has been sought with ill will and malice, with the motive to harass and blackmail the assessee. Furthermore, the Appellant is likely to misuse the information and could endanger the life and property of the assessee if the information goes in the hands of unsocial elements. There is no larger public interest served in disclosing this information to the Appellant.
The Commission has considered the submissions made by the Appellant, the Department and the representative of Dr. Naresh Trehan. To qualify for this exemption, the information must satisfy the following criteria:
1. It must be personal information.
There is no doubt that information with regard to Dr. Naresh Trehan is personal information.
2. It must not have been disclosed to the public authority as part of a public activity
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 permission, licence or authorisation, all these are public activities. Also when a citizen provides information in discharge of a statutory obligation, this too is a public activity. Therefore, information provided by an assessee to the department for purposes of income tax assessment is information disclosed in relation to a public activity and therefore this part of Section 8(1)(j) is inapplicable in the present case..
3. The disclosure of the information would lead to unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
Certain human rights such as liberty, freedom of expression or right to life are universal and therefore, would apply uniformly to all human beings worldwide. However, the concept of ‘privacy’ is a cultural notion, related to social norms, and different societies would look at these differently. Therefore referring to laws of other countries to define ‘privacy’ cannot be considered a valid exercise to constrain the citizen’s fundamental Right to Information in India.
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 State has no right to invade the privacy of an individual. There are some extraordinary situations where the State may be allowed to invade the privacy of a citizen. In those circumstances, special provisions of the law apply; usually with certain safeguards.
Therefore, 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. As this information has been provided by the assessee to meet his legal obligations, there is no unwarranted invasion of his privacy by the state. Therefore the disclosure of the same information to another person cannot be construed as being an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
Given our dismal record of misgovernance and rampant corruption which conspires 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.
Hence information provided by individuals in fulfillment of statutory requirements will not be covered by the exemption under Section 8 (1) (j).
It has come out during the hearing before the Commission, – and through the submissions made by the various parties, – that the Appellant is an informer for the Department. Escorts has also raised the matter in its written submissions of 17 September 2009, and asked the Commission to decide, ‘Whether an informer of the I.T. department can seek information in respect of the records of a third party for an ulterior motive?’ The ulterior motive being referred to appears to be the reward money, which the appellant might get.
The Appellant has given a list of additions made by various Tax evasion officers relating to the information being sought by him”
The Order then gives details of such additions (same are not reproduced here) running into crores of rupees.
Thus, the appellant has pointed out that Assessing officers have added hundreds of crores as additional income and CIT (A) has also confirmed some of them. He fears that a lot of alleged tax evasion will go unpunished, leading to a loss of revenue and perhaps his reward money. If citizens monitor this through RTI, it could be a major gain for public revenue and perhaps a good check on corrupt officials.
Based on above, Commission directed PIO to provide the inspection of the records and also the other information sought by the appellant before 15th January 2009.
[Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs. The PIO c/o CIT (Central)-2 New Delhi: No. CIC/ LS/A/2009/000647/SG/5887 of 14-12-2009]
Continuing from October to January BCAJ, the summary of two reports:
One
study by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) as appointed by the Department of
Personnel and Training (DOPT), titled “Understanding the key issues and
constraints in implementing the RTI Act.” Its final report as Executive
Summary is published in June 2009.
Second study by National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) and RTI Assessment
Analysis Group (RaaG), in collaboration with a number of other social
bodies including TISS, Mumbai under the title “Safeguarding the Right to
Information”.
DOPT-PWC Report:
Institutionalising third party audit
It
is strongly felt that in the absence of a strong review mechanism,
there is a high probability that the level of RTI implementation would
regress to lower levels.
Key issues observed
Some of the key facts observed during the study:
Limited infrastructure/processes with SIC to carry out
responsibilities under Sections 19(8) (a), 25(1), 25(2), 25(3f) 25(3g)
and 25(5), leading to non-compliance by PAs with regard to RTI
provisions.
No/inadequate mechanism for monitoring
proactive disclosure, resulting in low compliance to Section 4(1b) of
the RTI Act (65% of the PAs have not published their proactive
disclosure on the websites).
Non-adherence to service levels of 30 days causing delay in providing information to the RTI applicant.
Recommendations
To ensure better service delivery by authorities and officials, third
party audits should be institutionalized to support the Information
Commission in carrying out responsibilities under Sections 19(8)(a),
25(1), 25(2), 25(3f), 25(3g) and 25(5). Institutionalising regular
audits would facilitate the Public Authorities’ compliance with the RTI
Act (through the audit findings made available by Information
Commission). In this context, it is recommended to have a third party
audit (at least annually) to support the Information Commissions and RTI
Implementation Cell to monitor the performance of Public Authorities
and to take appropriate action in case of any deviation.
Moreover, it is also suggested that the SIC website should have a list
of all the Public Authorities within the jurisdiction of the Information
Commission. The website should have a feature for citizens to report
noncompliance (through tick-mark options) for a Public Authority. The
reports generated through this application, would be helpful for a
Public Authority and the Information Commission to take appropriate
actions.
Raag & NCPRI Report:
Current status and Preliminary Findings:
(7) RTI and the Courts
This
component is compiling data on court cases, in which appellants have
challenged State or Central Information Commissions. Analysis is being
driven by the following questions:
What types of CIC and SIC rejections are being taken to the High Court and to the Supreme Court?
What types of appellants are tending to do this?
How quickly is the higher judiciary resolving these cases?
Have judicial rulings, by and large, upheld the spirit of the RTI? In
which cases have judicial rulings tended to be in favour of appellants,
and in which against?
Has the referral of such cases to the
court influenced the offending public authority to provide requested
information, even if there is a judicial ruling?
Preliminary findings
Status
– This analysis has commenced with a review of RTI cases in the Delhi
High Court. Since many of the appeals heard by the Central Information
Commission are referred to the Delhi High Court, this makes it potential
representative of the RTI cases being heard by other High Courts as
well. Additionally, many Delhi Right to Information Act cases are
currently also lying before the Delhi High Court.
While 18
RTI cases have been located in the Delhi High Court records so far, only
15 of these have been selected for examination for analysis for the
Interim Report. These were filed before the Delhi High Court and Supreme
Court of India from 2006 to 2008.
In most of these cases,
the applicant—and not the Government—has taken the case to Court. Only
in four cases has the Union of India (UOI) approached the Courts. Even
though the sample size is small, a preliminary analysis reveals that the
Courts have shown sensitivity by admitting Writ petitions that
challenge the decisions of the Central Information Commission. However,
it must be pointed out that it is premature to comment upon the normal
outcome of such cases given that very few have as yet been decided.
But
given the way cases have been progressing, it can be inferred that many
RTI cases are pursued much like regular cases, in a “run of the mill”
manner. In one pending case, in which the applicant sought information
about the responsibilities of MCD officials charged with cleaning public
places of a certain village of Delhi, the judiciary has ignored the
public cause involved and MCD threats to the applicant and his family.
The case has lain before court for more than 1.5 years.
However,
in other cases, landmark judgments have been made, and that too
expeditiously, pointing to the beginning of systemic change in the
judiciary’s approach to RTI. One such is the Bhagat Singh vs. CIC &
Income Tax Department of Dec 2007, in which the judgement is liberal. It
interprets the exemption to information disclosure under Sec 8 (1) (h)
that disallows disclosure on the ground that “information which would
impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of
offenders”. The judgment is particularly important as it sets a
precedent and strongly supports the spirit and underlying principles of
the Right to Information Law. Further, the judgment was delivered within
8 months of its filing.
RTI and International Donors
Background:
While international donors fund social, infrastructural, and
institutional capacity -building activity, they have historically only
been required to report to the Indian Government. Resultantly, citizens
often have little information or say in how these programmes work or the
impact they have.
This component of the study is studying donor
disclosure policies to understand what kinds of information they require
donors to share directly with the Indian public, how these policies
compare with the requirements that the Right to Information Act places
upon Indian public authorities, and how the Right to Information Act is
shaping donor thinking on this issue. The analysis will also examine
donor disclosure policies in practice, and whether donors are sharing
the maximum information permissible or just their minimum requirement.
Also being studied is donor spending on RTI programmes in India, to
understand the manner in which they are attempting to influence the RTI
regime in the country.
Eleven international donors are being
studied, including nine of the largest multilateral and bilateral
government donors to India (World Bank, Asian Development Bank, Japanese
Bank for Inter-national Cooperation, GTZ, Russians, United Nations
Development Programme, European Union, DFID and USAID) and two of the
world’s largest private grant -giving foundations with operations in
India (Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation, Ford Foundation).
Research
comprises a desk review of the public information disclosure policies
and practices of the selected international donors, complemented by
face-to -face interviews with key stakeholders (including international
donors’ governance and accountability advisors in India, government
officials, beneficiaries, and members of the public).
Research is
still at a preliminary stage, although the desk review of information
disclosure policies and practices of all donors is now almost complete.
Early findings
-
UNDP, ADB and World Bank disclosure policies were easily available on
the Internet; other donors’ disclosure policies were not so easily found
-
While UNDP’s, ADB’s and the World Bank’s public disclosure policies
have undergone a series of revisions, ADB was the first to revise its
policy following stakeholder consultations.
- With respect to information that is exempt from disclosure:
UNDP – Broad definition of exceptions
ADB – well defined list
WB – everything else apart from documents about WB strategies and programmes is denied / discretionary
UNDP,
ADB and the World Bank all provide a list of documents related to their
operations (strategies, programmes and projects), but only ADB’s policy
appears to have a presumption in favour of disclosure.
Part C : Others News
Important Pronouncements by the Commission :
When
Shailesh Gandhi, CIC, was in the BCAS office addressing RTI activists
and journalists, he distributed compilation of 8 important and pro-found
pronouncements by the Central Information Commission (Continuing from
January 2010)
2. Alternative routes to access information
No
Claim has been made by the PIO of any exemption under the RTI Act to
deny the information. If a public authority has a process by a Citizen
other than the route provided by the Right to Information Act, it is the
Citizens’ right to decide which route he wishes to use. The existence
of another method of accessing information cannot deny the Citizen his
freedom to use his fundamental right codified under the Right to
Information Act. If Parliament wanted to restrict his right, it would
have been stated in the law. Nobody else has the right to constrain the
rights of the Citizen.
There is no Provision in the Right to
Information Act, which restrains the Citizen’s right to use it, if
another route to access information has been of-fered or is available.
It is a Citizen’s right to use the most convenient and efficacious means
avail-able to him.
Section 2(h) of the RTI Act
In
the last issue of BCAJ, under Part A, was cov-ered the Order of CIC on
section 2(h). I had there mentioned that many bodies operate primarily
as service to the citizens of India but they take a negative view that
they are not covered under section 2(h) and hence RTI Act does not apply
to them.
It is reported that following bodies disputing
application of RTI to them are now held by Delhi H.C to be covered under
RTI Act.
- Indian Olympic Association
- The Commonwealth Games Organizing Committee
Justice Bhat stated:
The
RTI Act recognizes that non-state actors may have responsibilities of
disclosing information which would be useful and necessary for the
people they serve as it furthers the process of empowerment, assures
transparency and makes democracy respon-sive and meaningful.
CIC has ruled that the Bar Councils are covered under the RTI Act and
they have been directed to set-up a mechanized for operation of RTI.
CIC’s decision is based on the fact that Bar Councils are set-up under
the Advocate Act 1961, Passed by Parliament.
Against above rulings, it is interesting to note what happened in the Supreme Court early in January’10
The
Supreme Court stayed the Orissa high court order, which had upheld a
2006 order of Naveen Patnaik government bringing Reliance Power owned
two power distribution companies under the purview of RTI Act.
The
advocate of the power distribution companies argued before the Supreme
Court that the RTI Act was applicable only to “public authority”, the
meaning of which was erroneously expanded by the government and agreed
to by the HC to include the power distribution companies under the RTI
Act.
In this connection remarks of Hon. Justice Chandra-chud as
reported in BCAJ of Dec 09 (Page 117) are very relevant. He said:
“Definition of ‘Information’ given in the Act, covers information
relating to any private body which can be accessed by a Public Authority
under any other law for the time being in force”. Thus, what can be
accessed by Public Authority can be accessed by any individual citizen
also. Therefore, though the implementation is presently focused on
Public governance or Public officials, it has to be extended to private
governance in course of time.
Missing File
nine
applicants got jobs with various central government organisations,
1,993 applicants got placement in state government offices,
quasi-government and local bodies affiliated to the state and the
central government provided placement to 1,265 applicants and 1,115
placements came from private sector.
“The exchange does not give
jobs to lakhs of educated youngsters. Only a lucky few get placements.
They have become irrelevant in today’s privatised economy,” said RTI
economist Chetan Kothari who had filed a query.
The Judgement of the Courts
The
Supreme Court ruled that the judge cannot be asked under the RTI Act as
to why and how he came to a conclusion in a judgement.
Said the
bench of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice B S Chauhan: ‘A
judge speaks through his judgments and he is not answerable to anyone as
to why he wrote the judgement in a particular manner’.
Renaming of High Courts
The
BMC has lost the file of a controversial South Mumbai building, which
was in the name of Dawood Ibrahim’s wife. This information was revealed
in a reply to the RTI application filed with the municipal
commissioner’s office. In his reply dated December 22, 2009, T M Bhatia,
assistant engineer-building and factories (C ward), said the file
papers pertaining to the building were not traceable/available.
Disclosure of assets held by Public servants
After
politicians and judges of the Supreme Court, now the assets of babus
have also been prised open to public scrutiny by RTI. In a landmark
order, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has said that disclosure
of information such as assets of public servant, routinely collected by
the public authority, should be made available to the public under the
Right To Information Act.
Employment Exchanges – how they operate!
In
reply to an RTI query, it is gathered that only 4,532 of the total
number of 30 lakh-plus job-seekers, who went through the Maharashtra
employment exchanges last year, got jobs. One hundred and fifty
In
reply to the RTI query, the ministry of law and justice has stated that
it has received the proposal to change names of four high courts.
The proposal to change the names of Bombay HC to Mumbai HC, Calcutta
HC to Kolkata HC, Gauhati HC to Guwahati HC and Madras HC to Chennai HC
is under consideration of the government.
RTI Act and Consumer Protection Act (CPA)
Very
interesting and a landmark judgement both for the RTI Act and the CP
Act has been delivered under the CP Act. Issue is whether failure to
furnish information without valid reason constitutes a deficiency in
service for which compensation can be sought by a consumer complaint.
The
applicant, Dr. Rao won the matter before the District Consumer Forum
but lost it before the Karnataka State Commission. The issue has now
been decided by the National Commission in a trend setting judgement.
The
National Commission observed that the settled law was that even if a
particular law barred the jurisdiction of courts, a complaint could
still be filed under the provision of the CPA as it provided an
additional remedy. The RTI Act did not bar the jurisdiction of the
consumer fora. Also, the provisions for appeal under the RTI Act were
restricted to the failure to furnish the information sought, but there
was no provision to claim compensation for deficiency in service. An
applicant under the RTI Act has to pay fees for getting the information,
and hence he acquires the status of a consumer. If there is any
deficiency in service in respect of providing such information, a
complaint could be filed under the CPA for claiming compensation.
