Central Information Commission Judgements

Shri Dheeraj Gehani vs Hq 21 Corps, Ministry Of Defence on 18 February, 2009

Central Information Commission
Shri Dheeraj Gehani vs Hq 21 Corps, Ministry Of Defence on 18 February, 2009
                         Central Information Commission
               Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00241-SM dated 06.06.2007
                 Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)

                                                                      Dated: 18.02.2009
Appellant     :       Shri Dheeraj Gehani

Respondent :          HQ 21 Corps, Ministry of Defence

The Appellant is present along with Smt. Asha Gehani and Pramod Yadav.

On behalf of the Respondent, Col. Yoginder Singh, is present

The brief facts of the case are as under.

2. The Appellant had requested the CPIO in his application dated 6 June 2007 for
information regarding the asthmatic condition of one captain Pallavi M and for the entire
health record of that officer for the period from 1 .1 2004 to 25. 5. 2007. The CPIO
denied the information in his letter dated 22 September 2007 on the ground that this was
personal information having no relationship to any public activity or interest and could
cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual. Against this, the Appellant
filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority on 18 October 2007 which that
Authority decided in his order dated 7 November 2007. The first Appellate Authority
endorsed the views of the CPIO. It is against that order that the Appellant has now
approached the Commission in second appeal.

3. During the hearing, we heard the submissions of both the sides. We agree with the
CPIO and the first Appellate Authority that the information sought is indeed purely
personal in nature and even if it concerns the wife of the Appellant, this cannot be
disclosed. Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act clearly exempts such
information from disclosure as this does not have any relationship to any public activity
or interest and can obviously cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual
concerned.

4. Therefore, we find no merit in this appeal and reject it.

5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.

(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this
Commission.

(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar