CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000603 dated 29-5-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri A.K. Srivastava
Respondent: President's Secretariat
Appeal heard 12.8.2010
Decision announced 13.8.2010
FACTS
By an application of 27-1-2009 received in the President’s Secretariat
on 2-2-2009 Shri A.K. Srivastava of Press Trust of India applied to the CPIO,
Shri Faiz Ahmad Kidwai, President’s Secretariat seeking the following
information:
1. Please provide me the date in detail about the health or
medical problems of all the Presidents (present and
former) of the county before, during or after assuming the
office.
2. The data should be given for all the 12 Presidents
separately, that is President wise.
3. it should be in the tabular form, comprising following
heads:
Name of the President.
Medical problem diagnosed before, during and after
assuming the office.
Number of times he/she was hospitalized with the
health problems, name of the hospital along with
doctor who attended to him/her.
Number of days spent in the hospital; bifurcate the
details department or ward wise. (that is ICU, other).
Doctor’s observation.
Expenditure incurred by the government during the
treatment (President wise).
Shri A.K. Srivastava also sought information separately for present
President Ms. Pratibha Devisingh Patil.
To this he received a response from CPIO, Shri Faiz Ahmad Kidwai
dated 3-3-09 refusing the information as follows:
“It is to inform you that the desired information is personal
information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any
public activity or interest and, therefore, is hereby rejected under
section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.”
1
Aggrieved Shri A.K. Srivastava moved an appeal before 1st Appellate
Authority, President’s Secretariat placing the following direct question:
“I will request the Appellate Authority to say where the desired
information by the applicant can be denied to the Parliament or
a State Legislature. If yes, then under what laws and sections.
If not, then why it should not be provided to the applicant (As
mentioned on the said Section, i.e. 8(1)(j).”
He further agreed to curtail the information sought by stating that he
would wish to have information only with regard to present President Ms.
Pratibha Devisingh Patil. In response to this 1st Appellate Authority in her
order of 5-5-09 has held as follows:
“In his appeal, the appellant has stated that since the medical
expenditure is paid by the Government, the citizens have a right
to know. On going through the case I find that the stand taken
by the CPIO is in order. Apart from this, collection of this data
would also derail the administrative machinery
disproportionately. The appeal stands dismissed.”
The appeal was heard through video-conferencing on 12-8-2010. The
following are present.
Respondents (at NIC Studio, President’s Sectt.)
Ms. Rasika Chaube, Internal Financial Advisor
Mr. Faiz Ahmad Kidwai, CPIO
Although informed of the date of hearing through our notice dated 29-7-
2010 appellant Shri A.K. Srivastava opted not to be present. Respondent
CPIO Shri. Faiz Ahmed Kidwai was asked specifically whether there was
constitutional privilege enjoyed by the President with regard to disclosure of
medical expenses in Parliament. Upon this Shri Kidwai submitted a letter
stating that as per Kaul & Shakhder’s ‘Practice and Procedure of Parliament’,
no question relating to the Head of State is answered in the House
DECISION NOTICE
In this case other than the name of the President, which is already
known to appellant, it is quite clear that the remaining four questions are
questions to which an attempted answer would amount to invasion of the
President’s privacy. Besides, in a judgment in WP(C) 228/2009, CPO
2
Supreme Court of India vs. SC Agrawal & Anr. the Delhi High Court has
discussed the concept of fiduciary relationship in some detail. A doctor’s
observation with regard to a patient is a doctor/patient relationship that lies at
the heart of fiduciary and therefore, exempt u/s 8 (1) (e) in addition to Section
8 (1) (j). The only question which could arguably allow for disclosure, given
the fact that public money is involved, could be the final question on
expenditure incurred by the government on treatment of the President. On
this issue although the budgetary position could be provided, the physical or
mental health or condition of an individual would qualify as ‘sensitive personal
data’ even by the norms of UK’s Data Protection Act, 1998, Sec 2, any
disclosure of which would hence be deemed invasion of privacy. In the
present case, appellant Shri A.K. Srivastava has in fact asked not for the
budgetary provision, but a question specific to the President. For this reason,
we uphold the decision of CPI in refusing the information sought, which as
has been clarified in the hearing cannot also be sought by Parliament
Reserved in the hearing to verify the constitutional provisions with
regard to disclosure of medical expenses, this decision notice is issued in
open chamber on this thirteenth day of August 2010. Notice of this decision
be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
13-8-2010
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
13-8-2010
3