CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000599 dated 28-5-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri M.S. Ramesh,
Respondent: Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
Heard and Decision announced: 16.9.2010
FACTS
By an application of 28-2-09 received by the CPIO, UPSC on 3-3-09
Shri M.S. Ramesh of Lawspet, Puducherry sought the following information:
“Photo-copies of UPSC’s SLP & Review petition and information
related to it. Details enclosed in a separate sheet of paper.
Period for which information asked for : 1989-2008″
In the ‘separate sheet of paper’ with the details of this request he also
sought photocopies of an SLP and Review Petition pending before the
Supreme Court of India together with the following questions:
1. How many times did Dr. R. Srinivasan apply for the post?
2. How many times was he called for the interview?
3. How many times did he attend the interview?
4. Did he ever get selected?
Upon this Shri Ramesh received the following response from CPIO
Shri Ashok Mehta, DS, UPSC:
“The information sought by you under item Nos. 1 & 2 cannot be
shared under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 wherein it is
inter-alia provided that there shall be no obligation to give any
Citizen, 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 Information Officer or
the State Information Officer or the Appellate Authority as the
case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies
the disclosure of such information.”
Shri M.S. Ramesh has then moved an appeal dated 3-4-09 before Shri
Nuruddin Ansari, JS (R.II) UPSC with the following prayer:
“The information sought under RTI does not relate to personal
information — its disclosure has much relationship to public
interest. Hence, it may be provided to me without further delay.”
1
In detailing the facts leading up to the appeal Shri M.S. Ramesh has
explained as follows:
“His1 retrospective regularization, in violation of all recruitment
rules and norms, has jeopardized the services and seniority of
the direct recruits like me (both outsiders and insiders) from the
UPSC. Even the services of the ad hoc lectures who got
subsequently selected by the UPSC after years together have
been regularized only with prospective effect. But Dr. R.
Srinivasan is said to have been rejected by the UPSC more than
once.”
Upon this, Appellate Authority Shri Nuruddin Ansari, JS (R.II)
dismissed the appeal as follows:
“The information has been rightly denied by the CPIO and
disclosure of information and supply of documents asked for by
the appellant is not in public interest and has no relation to any
public interest or activity”
Appellant has then moved his second appeal before us with the
following prayer:
“The information sought under RTI does not relate to
personal information – its disclosure has much relationship
to public interest. Hence, it may be provided to me without
further delay.”
The appeal was heard on 16-9-2010. The following are present.
Appellant: (at NIC Studio, Puducherry)
Shri M.S. Ramesh
Respondents (in CIC Chambers)
Shri Kamal Bhagat, JS (R.II)
Shri P.P. Haldar, DS (R-V)Shri P.P. Haldar, DS (R-V) submitted that documents relating to the
SLP are the property of the Supreme Court and not his to give. On the
specific question with regard to Dr. Srinivasan raised by the appellant in his
original application Shri P.P. Haldar submitted that this information is
scattered and will, if compiled, divert the resources of the UPSC thus
qualifying for exemption u/s 7 (9).
Appellant Shri Ramesh submitted that regularisation of posts have
taken place as per court orders but there was a suspicion that underhand
1
The reference is to Dr. R. Srinivasan
2
means have been used for this purpose, therefore, the requirement of the
information sought.
DECISION NOTICE
On the question of providing copies of SLPs etc. this Commission has
held in several cases that once a case has been filed in a court, all documents
contained in that case file become the property of the court, even if the
physical possession of the same were to remain with the respondent. In the
present case it would appear that the SLP, copies of which have been sought
by Shri M.S. Ramesh, does not include the appellant as party. Although,
documents of the nature sought are indeed accessible under the RTI Act
except those qualifying for exemption u/s 8 (1) the procedure to be followed
for accessing this information must as per Section 28 of the RTI Act, i.e.
following the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court of India. In this case
it will be Order XII of the Supreme Court of India Rules 1966, which deals with
information on the judicial side. Appellant Shri M.S. Ramesh is, therefore,
advised to make application accordingly. This issue is accordingly dismissed.
On the question relating to Dr. R. Srinivasan the contention of CPIO
that the information sought cannot be provided being exempted from
disclosure u/s 8 (1) (j) because it has no relationship to any public activity or
interest is flawed, since any UPSC examination is, within itself, a public
activity. However, there is nevertheless a possibility that it will amount to
invasion of privacy, which is a subjective evaluation, subject to the perception
of third party, in this case Dr. R. Srinivasan. In this matter we refer to the
decision of the Delhi High Court in which Hon’ble Murlidhar J has in a recent
judgment in Civil Misc. Petition No 5286/2009 & WP (C ) No. 8407/2009;
Union of India vs. Central Information Commission & Anr. held as
follows:
18. In order to appreciate their respective contentions, it is first
necessary to refer to Section 11(1) of the RTI Act which reads
as under:
“11. Third party information – (1) Where a Central
Public Information Officer or the State Public Information3
Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any
information or record, or part thereof on a request made
under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied
by a third party and has been treated as confidential by
that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give
a written notice to such third party of the request and of
the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be
intends to disclose the information or record, or part
thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in
writing or orally, regarding whether the information should
be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall
be kept it view while taking a decision about disclosure of
information:
Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial
secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the
public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any
possible harm or injury to the interests of such third
party.”
(emphasis supplied)
19. According to Mr. Bhushan, the ‘third party information’ is that
information which is in fact provided by the third party and
further should be asked by the said third party to be kept
confidential. It is only when both these conditions are fulfilled
that Section 11(1) of the RTI Act is attracted. In other words,
although Section 11(1) of the RTI act indicates that where the
information sought “relates to or has been supplied by a third
party” the word ‘or’ should be read as ‘and’ for only then the
provision would be workable. It was submitted that unless the
above interpretation is placed on Section 11(1), it will not be
possible for a person to access information relating to
appointments to the various posts in the Government of India.
20. On the other had, it was submitted by Mr. Dubey that there
was no scope to substitute the word ‘or’ with the word ‘and’ and
that since the statute was unambiguous it had to be read as
such. He submitted that information pertaining to ACRs,
vigilance reports etc., of an individual officer and their collation
even in the form of a chart would be information personal to
such officers and has to be viewed as ‘third party information’. It
is submitted that in such event the mandatory procedure
outlined under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act has to be followed.
21. This Court has considered the above submissions. It
requires to be noticed that under the RTI Act information that is
totally exempt from disclosure has been listed out in Section 8.
The concept of privacy is incorporated in Section 8(1)(j) of the
RTI Act. This provision would be a defense available to a person
about whom information is being sough. Such defence could be
4
taken by a third party in a proceeding under Section 11(1) when
upon being issued notice such third party might want to resist
disclosure on the grounds of privacy. This is a valuable right of a
third party that encapsulates the principle of natural justice
inasmuch as the statute mandates that there cannot be a
disclosure of information pertaining to or which ‘relates to’ such
third party without affording such third party an opportunity of
being heard on whether such disclosure should be ordered. This
is a procedural safeguard that has been inserted in the RTI Act
to balance the rights of privacy and the public interest involved
in disclosure of such information. Whether on should trump the
other is ultimately for the information officer to decide in the
facts of a given case.
In an emphatic conclusion learned Shri Muralidhar J has then stated
definitively as follows:
25. The logic of the Section 11(1) RTI Act is plain. Once the
information seeker is provided information relating to a third
party, it is no longer in the private domain. Such information
seeker can then disclose in turn such information to the whole
world. There may be an officer who may not want the whole
world to know why he or she was overlooked for promotion. The
defence of privacy in such a case cannot be lightly brushed
aside saying that since the officer is a public servant he or
she cannot possibly fight shy of such disclosure2. There
may be yet another situation where the officer may have no
qualms about such disclosure. And there may be a third
category where the credentials of the officer appointed may be
thought of as being in public interest to be disclosed. The
importance of the post held may also be a factor that might
weigh with the information officer. This exercise of weighing the
competing interests can possibly be undertaken only after
hearing all interested parties. Therefore the procedure under
Section 11(1) RTI Act.
Under the circumstances, whereas the information sought in this matter
is not exempt from disclosure in itself, since the question relates to a third
party, a reference to that third party will, therefore, be made by CPIO within
five days of receipt of this Decision Notice, and on receipt of any objection
from whom, the decision will require to be taken by the CPIO on merits
exempting from disclosure only such information as is exempt u/s 8(1) and
therefore in accordance with the requirements of the RTI Act, strictly adhering
to the time limit for a response by the third party laid down for the purpose.
The appeal is thus allowed in part. There will be no cost.
2
Emphasis added
5
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
16-9-2010
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 K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
16-9-2010
6