CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000584/SG/14695
Appeal No.CIC/SM/A/2011/000584/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Mahenderpal Singh Yadav
District Agriculture Officer
Kashiram Nagar
F. No.- R-12/ 70
Rajnagar, Ghaziabad
Respondent : Mr. Dinesh Kumar,
AGM & PIO
Allahabad bank
Main branch, 55 The Mall,
Meerut (U.P)
RTI application filed on : 16/08/2010
PIO replied : 14/09/2010
First appeal filed on : 22/09/2010
First appellant authority replied on : 03/11/2010
Second appeal received on : 27/12/2010
Information Sought
Appellant wants to be provided with following information in relation to Mr. Rajpal Singh, Senior
manager, Allahabad bank, Charan Singh Vishwavidya, Meerut :
1. What was the state of movable and immovable assets of Mr. Rajpal Singh shown by him at the
time of his first appointment bank?
2. How much movable and immovable property does Mr. Rajpal Singh currently and what is the
source of the same?
3. Has any complaint of corruption/fraud/embezzlement etc. been registered against Mr. Rajpal Singh
by any person/institution during his service period? If yes, then please inform about outcome of
the same.
4. Whether Mr. Rajpal Singh ever filed any complaint against any institute/person which was later
found false?
5. How many bank accounts does Mr. Rajpal Singh posses and has he ever transacted above the
amount of Rs. 5,00,000? If yes, then on what basis has he undertaken huge transaction and what
was the source?
6. Is Mr. Rajpal Singh’s daughter Jigyasa dependant on him? If not, then Mr. Rajpal Singh shall
provide information about her employer and residence.
Reply of PIO
Information sought cannot be provided for reasons and exemptions inter alia under section 8(1)(d)(e)&(j)
under RTI Act, 2005.
Page 1 of 3
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Not satisfied with PIO’s reply
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) :
Upheld PIO’s decision
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory order of FAA
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Chaudhary, Chief Manager representing Mr. Dinesh Kumar, AGM & PIO on
video conference from NIC-Meerut Studio;
The PIO has refused to give information on all the queries claiming that the information is exempt
from disclosure under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission agrees with the contention of the PIO
that information on query 4, 5 & 6 would be exempt and some of this information would not even be held
by the Bank. As regards query 1 & 2 exemption has been claimed under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The Commission has already decided in CIC/AT/A/2008/01262/SG/2109 dated 27/02/2009 that the assets
of public servants would have to be disclosed when a citizen uses the Right to Information. The
Commission can allow denial of information only based on the exemptions listed under Section 8 (1) of
the act. The PIO has claimed that the information should not be disclosed since it is exempted from
disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j).
Under Section 8 (1) (j) information which has been exempted is defined as:
“information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship 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:”
To qualify for this exemption the information must satisfy the following criteria:
1. It must be personal information.
Words in a law should normally be given the meanings given in common language. In common
language we would ascribe the adjective ‘personal’ to an attribute which applies to an individual and not to
an Institution or a Corporate. From this it flows that ‘personal’ cannot be related to Institutions,
organisations or corporates. ( Hence we could state that Section 8 (1) (j) cannot be applied when the
information concerns institutions, organisations or corporates.).
The phrase ‘disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest’ means that the
information must have some relationship to 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, all these
are public activities. The information sought in this case by the appellant has certainly been obtained in
the pursuit of a public activity.
We can also look at this from another aspect. 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 on the
privacy of a Citizen. In those circumstances special provisos of the law apply, always with certain
Page 2 of 3
safeguards. Therefore it can be argued that 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.
Therefore we can state that disclosure of information such as assets of a Public servant, -which is
routinely collected by the Public authority and routinely provided by the Public servants,- cannot be
construed as an invasion on the privacy of an individual. There will only be a few exceptions to this
rule which might relate to information which is obtained by a Public authority while using
extraordinary powers such as in the case of a raid or phone-tapping. Any other exceptions would
have to be specifically justified. Besides the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that even people who aspire
to be public servants by getting elected have to declare their property details. If people who aspire to be
public servants must declare their property details it is only logical that the details of assets of those who
are public servants must be considered to be disclosable. Hence the exemption under Section 8(1) (j)
cannot be applied in the instant case.
In view of this the PIO’s claim for exemption of this information is not allowed. As regards query-3 if
any information on any complaints of fraud against any employee is available it has to be disclosed.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information on query 1, 2 & 3 to the Appellant as
per available records before 10 October 2011.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
20 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(NS)
Page 3 of 3