* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 18.11.2011
% Judgment delivered on: 22.11.2011
+ W.P.(C.) No. 5677/2011
JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M. Atyab Siddiqui, Advocate.
versus
SH. IKRAMUDDIN ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Zafar Sadique, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? : Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? : Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? : Yes
JUDGMENT
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
1. The petitioner, Jamia Millia Islamia, a statutory public central
institution regulated by Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988, assails the
order dated 21.06.2011 passed by the Central Information Commission
(in short referred to as “CIC”) in the respondent‟s appeal
No.CIC/SG/A/2010/001106, whereby the CIC has allowed the appeal
preferred by the respondent and directed the Public Information Officer
(PIO) of the petitioner to provide the complete information available as
on record in relation to query No.1 of the respondent.
W.P.(C.) No. 5677/2011 Page 1 of 9
2. The respondent had sought information vide query No.1 as
follows: “Copies of Agreement/settlement between Jamia and Abdul
Sattar S/o Abdul Latif & mania and Kammu Chaudhary in Ghaffar
Manzil land”. Two other queries were also raised, however, I am not
concerned with them in this petition as the impugned order directs
disclosure of information raised in query No.1 only, as aforesaid.
3. The PIO vide reply dated 18.03.2010 rejected the application of
the respondent under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (the Act for
short) by stating that the information sought had no relationship to any
public activity or interest and, as such, the same could not be disclosed
under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The first appellate authority also
affirmed the order of the PIO on the same grounds. The CIC, as
aforesaid, has allowed the appeal insofar as query No.1 is concerned.
4. Before the CIC, the submission of the petitioner was, and even
before me is, that the disclosure of the title documents of the
petitioner/public authority/institution is exempted under Section 8(1)(j)
of the Act. It was argued that the information sought by the
respondent was an invasion of the privacy of the institution and had no
relationship with any public activity or interest. It was argued that in
case the title documents of the petitioner fall in wrong hands, it could
be highly prejudicial to the cause of the petitioner-Institution, as there
was a possibility that the said title documents may be misused.
5. On the other hand, the argument of the respondent herein was
that since the petitioner is a University, it had no right to withhold the
information about it.
W.P.(C.) No. 5677/2011 Page 2 of 9
6. The CIC held that to qualify for the exemption contained in
Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, the information sought must satisfy the
following criteria:-
. “The information sought must be personal in nature.
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, Section 8(1)(j)
of the RTI Act 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 been given in the course of a
public activity. Various public authorities while
performing their functions routinely ask for „personal‟
information from citizens, and this is clearly a public
activity. Public activities would typically include
situations wherein a person applies for a job, or gives
information about himself to a public authority as an
employee, or asks for a permission, license or
authorization, or provides information in discharge of
a statutory obligation.
. The disclosure of the information would lead to
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
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 the
privacy of a citizen. In those circumstances special
provisions of the law apply usually with certain
safeguards. Therefore 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.”
7. The CIC held that for exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act
to apply, the information sought must be personal in nature, that it
must pertain to an individual and not an
Institution/Organization/Corporate. It was further held that whether
W.P.(C.) No. 5677/2011 Page 3 of 9
the information sought had a relationship with any public activity or
interest is not a consideration, while interpreting Section 8(1)(j) of the
Act. Consequently, the defence of the petitioner herein was rejected
and the appeal was allowed.
8. The submission of Mr. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the
petitioner, is that the petitioner – a statutory body, is a juristic entity.
It is a “person” in law. He relies on the meaning of the expression
“person” as defined in the Black’s Law Dictionary which, inter alia,
means “an entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as
having the rights and duties of a human being”.
9. He submits that Article 14 of the Constitution of India also uses
the expression “person” and reads:
“14. Equality before law.- The State shall not deny to
any person equality before the law or the equal protection
of the laws within the territory of India.”
He submits that the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 14
of the Constitution of India is available not only to an individual, that is
a living person, but also to a juristic person. He also relies on Section
3(42) of the General Clauses Act which defines a person to “include
any company or association or body of individuals, whether
incorporated or not”.
10. He submits that the expression “personal information” used in
Section 8(1)(j) of the Act means the information in relation to any
“person”, whether an individual or a juristic entity. He submits that
the CIC is wrong in its conclusion that “personal information” can only
relate to an individual. He further submits that Clause (j) of Section
W.P.(C.) No. 5677/2011 Page 4 of 9
8(1) of the Act uses both expressions “personal information” and
“individual”. He submits that this itself shows that the expression
“personal information” has a wider connotation than information
relating to an “individual”.
11. Mr. Siddiqui further submits that Section 8, which provides the
exemptions from disclosure of information, begins with a non obstante
clause by stating “Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Act……..”. Therefore, the exemptions contained in Section 8(1) of the
Act override the right granted to a querist to seek information under
Section 3 of the Act.
12. He submits that the disclosure of the information as allowed by
the CIC can lead to serious consequences, inasmuch as, armed with
the said information, the querist or any other person in whose hands
the said information may fall, may misuse the same by resorting to
forgery and fabrication.
13. On the other hand, the submission of learned counsel for the
respondent is that the petitioner University, a statutory Corporation, is
a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act. He
submits that the CIC has only directed the disclosure of the copies of
the Agreement/settlement arrived at between the petitioner and one
Abdul Sattar in relation to Gaffar Manzil land. He submits that the
petitioner being a public authority, every citizen is entitled to seek
information in relation to its public activities and conduct. It is argued
by the learned counsel for the respondent that under the Act, the rule
is in favour of disclosure of information. He submits that even in
relation to an individual, there is no absolute bar against disclosure of
W.P.(C.) No. 5677/2011 Page 5 of 9
his personal information. The disclosure of personal information in
relation to an individual could be withheld by the public authority only
where the disclosure of the information is either not in relation to any
public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion
of the privacy of the individual. However, even in such cases, the
Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) or the State Public Information
Officer (SPIO) or the appellate authority, on being satisfied, in larger
public interest would disclose even such personal information.
14. I have given my due consideration to the issue raised. The
preamble of the Act provides an aid to interpret clause (j) of Section
8(1) of the Act. The preamble of the Act, inter alia, states:
“An Act to provide for setting out the practical
regime of right to information for citizens to secure access
to information under the control of public authorities, in
order to promote transparency and accountability in the
working of every public authority, ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..
And Whereas democracy requires an informed
citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to
its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold
Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to
the governed;
And Whereas revelation of information in actual
practice is likely to conflict with other public interests
including efficient operations of the Governments,
optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the
preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information;
And Whereas it is necessary to harmonise these
conflicting interest while preserving the paramountancy of
the democratic ideal;”
15. The thrust of the legislation is to secure access of information
under the control of public authorities in order to promote
transparency and accountability in the working of every public
authority. The access to information is considered vital to the
W.P.(C.) No. 5677/2011 Page 6 of 9
functioning of a democracy, as it creates an informed citizenry.
Transparency of information is considered vital to contain corruption
and to hold Government and its instrumentalities accountable to the
governed citizens of this country. No doubt, a “person” as legally
defined includes a juristic person and, therefore, the petitioner is also a
“person” in law. This is amply clear from the definition of the
expression “person” contained in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses
Act. That is how the expression is also understood in Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
16. However, in my view the expression “personal information” used
in Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, does not relate to information pertaining to
the public authority to whom the query for disclosure of information is
directed.
17. No public authority can claim that any information held by it is
“personal”. There is nothing “personal” about any information, or
thing held by a public authority in relation to itself. The expression
“personal information” used in Section 8(1)(j) means information
personal to any other “person”, that the public authority may hold.
That other “person” may or may not be a juristic person, and may or
may not be an individual. For instance, a public authority may, in
connection with its functioning require any other person – whether a
juristic person or an individual, to provide information which may be
personal to that person. It is that information, pertaining to that other
person, which the public authority may refuse to disclose, if it satisfies
the conditions set out in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the Act, i.e., if such
information has no relationship to any public activity or interest vis-à-
W.P.(C.) No. 5677/2011 Page 7 of 9
vis the public authority, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of
the privacy of the individual, under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the Act.
The use of the words “invasion of the privacy of the individual” instead
of “an individual” shows that the legislative intent was to connect the
expression “personal information” with “individual”. In the scheme of
things as they exist, in my view, the expression “individual” has to be
and understood as “person”, i.e., the juristic person as well as an
individual.
18. The whole purpose of the Act is to bring about as much
transparency, as possible, in relation to the activities and affairs of
public authorities, that is, bodies or institutions of self governance
established or constituted: by or under the Constitution; by any other
law made by Parliament; by any other law may by State legislature;
any body owned or controlled or substantially financed directly or
indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government; any
non-government organization substantially financed directly or
indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government; or
any authority or body or institution constituted by a notification issued
or by order made by the appropriate Government.
19. If the interpretation as suggested by the petitioner were to be
adopted, it would completely destroy the very purpose of this Act, as
every public authority would claim information relating to it and
relating to its affairs as “personal information” and deny its disclosure.
If the disclosure of the said information has no relationship to any
public activity or interest.
W.P.(C.) No. 5677/2011 Page 8 of 9
20. Alternatively, even if, for the sake of argument it were to be
accepted that a public authority may hold “personal information” in
relation to itself, it cannot be said that the information that the
petitioner has been called upon to disclose has no relationship to any
public activity or interest.
21. The information directed to be disclosed by the CIC in its
impugned order is the copies of the Agreement/settlement arrived at
between the petitioner and one Abdul Sattar pertaining to Gaffar
Manzil land. The petitioner University is a statutory body and a public
authority. The act of entering into an agreement with any other
person/entity by a public authority would be a public activity, and as it
would involve giving or taking of consideration, which would entail
involvement of public funds, the agreement would also involve public
interest. Every citizen is entitled to know on what terms the
Agreement/settlement has been reached by the petitioner public
authority with any other entity or individual. The petitioner cannot be
permitted to keep the said information under wraps.
22. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in
this petition and dismiss the same as such.
(VIPIN SANGHI)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 22, 2011
vk
W.P.(C.) No. 5677/2011 Page 9 of 9
