CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01460 dated 27.11.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Jai Kishan Aggarwal
Respondent - Dy. Commissioner of Police (Licensing)
Facts
:
By an application of 6.3.07 Shri Jai Kishan Aggarwal of Dariba Kalan,
Delhi applied to the DCP (Licensing) seeking the following information:
1. “Please inform that whether any officer of Office of DCP (Licensing)
visited the Rajdhani Guest House at Esplanade Road, Delhi-
110006 on 3rd July 2006? If yes, whether he found any type of
storage of cycle tyres, cycle parts/ good, tri-cycles etc in some
rooms of the guesthouse?
2. Please inform that whether that officer took photographs of those
rooms? If yes, please provide certified copy of that photograph.
3. Please also inform that whether that officer recorded the statement
of Jinender Kumar, S/o Shri Chander Prakash in respect of the said
storage of cycle tyres, cycle parts/ goods, tri-cycles etc in some
rooms? If yes, please provide certified copy of the statement.
4. Please also provide certified copy of the report of the officer
submitted in the office after visit.”
To this he received a response dated 31.8.07 from ACP (Hotel) answering
all the questions pointwise but withholding the recorded statement of Shri
Jinender Kumar on grounds of exemption u/s 8(1) sub-section (j). Shri Aggarwal
then moved his first appeal on 17.9.07 before the Jt. Commission HQs. Delhi
Police on the single point that “In Point No. 3 the statement of Shri Jinender
Kumar has not been provided under sec. 8(j) of the Act.” On his part, the Joint
Cr. Of Police HQs in his order of 5.11.07 directed as follows:
After going through application dated 6.8.2007 filed by the applicant
under RTI Act, 2005, Letter No. 26956/DCP (Licen) dated 21.8.07
addressed to Shri Jinender Kumar by DCP (Licensing), Objection
filed by Shri Jinender Kumar vide his letter dated 22.8.07 and Letter1
No. 28438/DCP/Licen dated 31.8.07 of DCP issued under RTI Act,
I have come to the conclusion that information sought by the
appellant has been provided by the DCP (Licensing), except non
supply of statement given by Shri Jinender Kumar during Enquiry
under sec. 8(J) of RTI Act 2005 is as per rules. Therefore, the
above appeal does not merit for further consideration.”Appellant’s prayer before us in his second appeal is as below:
“It is humbly prayed that the necessary orders may be kindly
be issued on the present appeal so that complete information
may be provided to the appellant.’The principal ground for this appeal remains the application of exemption
u/sec. 8(1) sub-section (j) as follows:“That in the present case, the statement asked for has been
recorded on the alleged complaint of the appellant. Hence, it can
be provided to the appellant without consent of the third party.
Section 8 (j) restricts only that information which can be denied to
the Parliament or State Legislature.”
The appeal was heard on 12.2.2009. Only respondent Shri Virender
Chauhan, ACP (Licensing) / APIO is present. Although Appellant Sh. Jai Kishan
Aggarwal had been informed by Notice dated 20.1.2009 regarding the hearing he
has opted not to be present. Shri Chauhan submitted that in fact the third party
has been consulted who in his letter of 22.8.2007 has objected to the disclosure
of the information sought to appellant Shri Jai Kishan Aggarwal. However, the
complete report of the enquiry dated 6.7.06 in which a reference has also been
made to the statement of the third party without details has already been
provided to the appellant, as per his receipt of 7.9.07 after payment by Shri
Aggarwal of Rs. 4/-.
DECISION NOTICE
What has been sought is clearly information regarding a statement made by
a third party, which could therefore, attract the provisions of sec. 8(1) (j) of the
RTI Act. We have no clear definition of what is meant by “invasion of privacy”
2
within the RTI Act. We have no equivalent of UK’s Data Protection Act, 1998,
Sec 2 of which, titled Sensitive Personal Data, reads as follows:
In this Act “sensitive personal data” means personal data consisting
of information as to:
a) The racial or ethnic origin of the data subject
b) His political opinions
c) His religious beliefs or other beliefs of a similar nature
d) Whether he is a member of a Trade Union
e) His physical or mental health or condition
f) His sexual life
g) The commission or alleged commission by him of any offence
h) Any proceedings for any offence committed or alleged to have
been committed by him, the disposal of such proceedings or the
sentence of any court in such proceedings.
If we were to construe privacy to mean protection of personal data, this
would be a suitable reference point to help define the concept. In the context
of sub-sections g) and h) above, the answer sought by appellant at point 3 of
his application is of private information. On the other hand, the US
Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts, ยง 652 define the Intrusion to Privacy
in the following manner:
“One, who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the
solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is
subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the
intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. “
At any rate PIO has taken the precaution of referring the matter to the third
party, as required u/s 11(1) and on the basis of his response has withheld the
information sought.
Under the above circumstances and given that the provision of sec. 11(1), it
was mandatory for the public authority, which was given the statement in
confidence by third party Shri Jinender Kumar, to consult the latter before its
disclosure. The decision of the public authority to withhold the information,
therefore, is in keeping with the RTI Act.
3
However, we find that whereas the appellant Shri Agarwal has moved his
first appeal on 17.9.07, the order of the first Appellate Authority is dated only
5.11.07 when it should have been delivered in the normal course by 1710.07. No
penalty lies in a delay of this nature. However, Jt. Commissioner of Police, HQs
is cautioned to ensure that he adheres fully with the provisions of the RTI Act
2005 in disposing of appeals coming before him.
This appeal being without substance is hereby dismissed. Announced in
the hearing.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
12.2.2009
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.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
12.2.2009
4