CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi -110 067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2008/00993/SG/2219
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00993
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Jagvesh Kumar Sharma
A-42 & 43, Gali No.4,
Pandav Nagar Complex,
Ganesh Nagar,
New Delhi - 110092
Respondent : Joint Secretary (Home)
& Public Information Officer
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Home (General) Department,
5th Floor, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P.Estate, New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 31/12/2007 Id no. 1082
PIO replied : 29/01/2008
First appeal filed on : 14/02/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 11/03/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 15/05/2008
Information Sought:
The appellant had sought certain information from Delhi Secretariat regarding validity
of armed license.
Sl. Information Sought PIO’s Reply
1. How many forms for validation of armed In reply to point numbers 1 to 4:
licenses received between 1st January 2000 to No such record managed by this department
31st December, 2007 ? furnish copy of rules and however after verification/investigation forms
regulations. sent to concerned Dy.Commissioners for
2. Furnish number of armed licenses validated for action. Home department takes action just
all India basis between 1st January 2000 to 31st after the police department gives clearance.
December, 2007 after repeated applications? Photocopies of rules/regulations already sent
Kindly give copy of such rules. to you on 8/1/2008 letter no.
3. Furnish number of armed licenses applied for 13(20)/2007/L.No/83.
validation from other states between 1st January
2000 to 31st December, 2007.
4. Furnish number of armed licenses cancelled to
validated from other states and have repeated
applications.
Not satisfied with the replies of PIO the appellant filed first appeal.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
The first appellate authority in his order states that appellant did not asked any information.
He further states that the appellant has certain allegations in respect of Deputy Commissioner
(License) and licensing authority, which is his personal opinion and department did not see
any proof. The appellate authority has also ruled that the information is exempt under Sectio 8
(1) (j)
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present.
Appellant : Mr. Jagvesh Kumar Sharma
Respondent : Mr. Mukul Koranga PIO
The respondent claims that the information is not available of how many people apply
repeatedly and get their arms licenses. The appellant alleges that people who pay
bribes after a rejection get the arms licenses. The Commission suggested that if the
information as sought by the appellant is not available in the format that he seeks, he
may be given the list of all applicants and he could arrive at the names of people who
have applied after a rejection and obtained the license subsequently. Alternately he
could be allowed to inspect the files and extract the information himself.
The respondent then claimed that the information is not with them. Thje
Commission pointed out that if that was the case he should have transferred the
application within 5 days or atleast sought the assistance under Section 5 (4). The
claim of not holding the information at this stage before the Commission appears to
be malafide with the sole objective of not giving the information.
The PIO then claimed exemption under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI act. He also
contends that the First appellate authority had also ruled that the information could
not be given as it would intrude on the privacy of the applicants. They contend that
releasing the names of the applicants of arms licences would an invasion of their
privacy.
The respondent has given written submissions to the Commission.
The decision is reserved during hearing and announced later during the day.
Decision:
The issue to be determined is whether the exemption under Section 8(1) (j) is
available to this information.
Under Section 8 (1) (j) information which has been exempted is defined as:
“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 Public Information Officer
or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be,
is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:”
To qualify for this exemption the information must satisfy the following criteria:
1. It must be personal information.
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 we
could state that Section 8 (1) (j) cannot be applied when the information concerns
institutions, organisations or corporates.).
2. The phrase ‘disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or
interest’ must be interpreted to mean the information must have some relationship to a
Public activity.
Various Public authorities in performing their functions routinely ask for ‘personal’
information from Citizens, and this is clearly a public activity. When a person applies
for a job, or gives information about himself to a Public authority as an employee, or
asks for a permission, licence or authorisation, all these are public activities. Applying
for an arms licence certainly falls in this category. As a matter of fact Section 4 (1) (b)
(xiii) requires a suo moto publishing of ‘ particulars of recipients of concessions,
permits or authorisations granted by it;’.
3. If releasing the information would lead to an unwanted intrusion of privacy, it
would be exempt.
We can also look at this from another aspect. 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 on the privacy of a Citizen. In those circumstances special
provisos of the law apply, always with certain safeguards. Therefore it can be argued
that 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.
Certain human rights such as liberty, freedom of expression or right to life are
universal and therefore would apply uniformly in all Countries uniformly. However,
the concept of ‘privacy’ is related to the society and different society’s would look at
these differently. India has not codified this right so far, hence in balancing the Right
to Information of Citizens and the individual’s Right to Privacy the Citizen’s Right to
Information would be given greater weightage.
Therefore we can accept that disclosure of information which is routinely
collected by the Public authority and routinely provided by individuals, would not be
an invasion on the privacy of an individual and there will only be a few exceptions to
this rule which might relate to information which is obtained by a Public authority
while using extraordinary powers such as in the case of a raid or phone-tapping. The
applicant for a licence or permit or authorization gives information of his own volition
since he does not regard giving of this information as an intrusion on his privacy.
In view of the foregoing the Commission rules that providing the names of persons
who applied for arms licences cannot be construed as an invasion on privacy.
The appeal is allowed.
The list of people who applied for arms licences from 1 January 2000 to
31 December 2007 will be provided to the appellant before 10 April
2009. If however the respondent is able to supply the information as
sought by the appellant, viz. ‘ names of persons whose subsequent
applications were accepted after being rejected initially’, the PIO may
provide it.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
16 March, 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)