CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001262/8157
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001262
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Ms. Vijita
17, Krishi Apartments
Sector-13, Rohini,
Delhi- 110085.
Respondent : Ms. Neena Kumari
Public Information Officer & Dy. Director
Gov. of NCT of Delhi
O/o the Deputy Director of Education (NW-A)
B.L. Block, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi-110088.
RTI application filed on : 04/12/2009
PIO replied : 11/01/2010
First appeal filed on : 27/01/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 18/02/2010
Second Appeal received on : 13/05/2010
Date of Notice of Hearing : 18/05/2010
Hearing Held on : 16/06/2010
Information Sought: Public Information Officer's (PIO) reply:
i) Reason for the transfer of the Appellant from The said information is not covered under Section
RPVV Shalimar Bagh to SKV Khajori Khas. 2(f) of RTI ACT, 2005.
ii) Copy of the notings/recommendations made The information falls under Section 8(e) of the
by the Principal, RPVV Shalimar Bagh for the RTI ACT, 2005 and hence cannot be provided.
transfer of the Appellant.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA found that the information provided by the PIO was satisfactory and hence disposed off the
Appeal.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided the PIO and unfair disposal of the appeal by the FAA.
Page 1 of 2
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Ms. Vijita;
Respondent: Ms. Neena Kumari, Public Information Officer & Dy. Director;
The PIO has denied giving the information on query-1 on the ground that the reasons for
transfer are not information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. If there are any reasons on
the record these must be provided since these form a record held by the public authority. However, if
there are no reasons on the record this should be stated.
The PIO has refused to give information on query-2 claiming that recommend for transfers
falls in the ambit of Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act exempts,
“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;”
For Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act to apply there must be a fiduciary relationship and the holder of
information must hold the information in his fiduciary capacity. 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.
financial analyst or trustee. The information must be given by the holder of information when there is a
choice- as when a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, or a patient goes to particular doctor. It is also
necessary that the principal character of the relationship is the trust placed by the provider of
information in the person to whom the information is given. 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 giver. All relationships usually have an element of trust,
but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. Only that information can be considered as “available
to a person in his fiduciary relationship”, which is available to a person in an explicit relationship of
trust (typically that of a lawyer, medical practitioner of financial advisor), where the trustee has been
given access to the information on the mutual understanding that it is solely to be used for protecting
the interests or promoting the welfare of the person giving the information, and where the withholding
(or not proactively making public) of such information is not contrary to the law of the land.
In the instant case the requirements of fiduciary relationship cannot be established. The
Recommendation made by Principal on the basis of which a transfer is made is not given in the
fiduciary capacity since the information is not to be used for the benefit of the principal who gave this.
In view of this the exemption claimed under section 8(1) (e) by the PIO is struck down.
Hence the information on query-2 must be supplied to the appellant. The PIO is warned to ensure that
refusal of information in done only by strictly interpreting the exemption under the RTI Act failing
which the penalty provisions of the RTI Act would be invoked.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information as directed above to the appellant
before 30 June 2010.
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
16 June 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AG)
Page 2 of 2