CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001333/8354
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001333
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Manish Jain
A-34, Sudama Nagar,
Indore-452009.
Respondent : Public Information Officer &
Director
Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Panchdeep Bhavan, CIG Road,
New Delhi 110002
RTI application filed on : 01/02/2010
PIO replied : 17/03/2010
First appeal filed on : 18/03/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 20/04/2010
Second Appeal received on : 25/05/2010
Information Sought
The Appellant sought information regarding the whole selection process for the Post of Specialist GR-
II (Jr. Scale) in reference to the interview held from 29/06/2009 to 04/07/2009 against the
advertisement that appeared in the local newspaper on 25/04/2008 along with a copy of the minutes of
the meeting and related documents.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
The information cannot be provided in view of Section 8(i)(e) and (g) of the RTI Act.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Non-supply of information by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA observed that the information was rightly denied under Section 8(i)(e) and (g) of the RTI Act
as the disclosure of such information would effect the confidentiality and integrity of the recruitment
process and may also endanger the safety of the persons involved in the process of selection. Moreover,
such disclosure would serve no public purpose.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unfair disposal of the appeal by the FAA.
Page 1 of 3
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing. However, neither party appeared. The appellant
has sought information regarding the whole selection process for the Post of Specialist GR-II (Jr. Scale)
in reference to the interview held from 25/06/2009 to 04/07/2009 against advertisement appearing in
local news paper on 25/04/2008 along with a copy of the minutes of the meeting. The PIO has given a
reply late refusing to give the information claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(e) & (g). The FAA
has upheld the decision of the PIO stating that, “the disclosure of information would affect the
confidentiality and integrity of the recruitment process and also may endanger the safety of a person
involved in the process of selection.
The PIO has made no effort to give any reasons as to how exemptions under Section 8(1)(e) &(g)
would apply in the instant case. Right to Information is a fundamental right of citizens and denial of
information can only be justified if it is exempt under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The Act clearly
places the responsibility on the PIO to be very careful in denying the information. Giving of
information should be the rule and denial the exception. Section 19(5) of the RTI Act clearly puts the
onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified on the PIO. The PIO has given no reasoning to
justify how Section 8(1)(e) & (g) would apply. The FAA has given no justification for Section 8(1)(e)
but has claimed that releasing the information may endanger the safety of the persons involved in the
selection process. The Commission is however analyzing the exemptions claimed by the PIO:
1- Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure ‘information available to a person in
his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest
warrants the disclosure of such information;’
The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to
someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter’s benefit within the scope of that relationship.
In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a
particular profession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, financial analyst or trustee. Another important
characteristic of such a relationship is that the information must be given by the holder of information
who must have a choice,- as when a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, a customer chooses a particular
bank, or a patient goes to particular doctor. An equally important characteristic for the relationship to
qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the information for using it
for the benefit of the one who is providing the information. All relationships usually have an element of
trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. Information provided in discharge of a statutory
requirement, or to obtain a job, or to get a license, cannot be considered to have been given in a
fiduciary relationship.
In the instant case the details of how a person was selected for a job in a public authority is not given to
the authority in a fiduciary relationship but is provided by the selection committee in discharge of its
duties. The selection committee has no choice about whom it can give the information to nor is the
information given for its own benefit.
2- To claim that people who are not selected by a Committee would cause harm to members of the
selection committee is indeed very far fetched. Yet if the PIO believes this to be a serious concern he
could blank out the names of the members who may have expressed certain opinions or done any
grading when releasing the information as per Section-10 of the RTI Act.
Hence the PIO’s claim for exemption under Section 8(1)(e) & (g) is not upheld.
Page 2 of 3
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information to the appellant before 20
July 2010. If he feels that the safety of the members of the selection committee is likely
to be endangered he may blank out the names of the selection committee members if
they have given any individual opinions or grades or marks.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information
within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the
requirement of the RTI Act.
It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is
being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty
should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 29 July 2010 at 11.00am
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the
appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before
the Commission with him.
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
30 June 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ND)
Page 3 of 3