CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000955/7999
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000955
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Surender Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Saroop Singh
R/o Village Raghopur, PO Chhawla
New Delhi- 110071.
Respondent : Public Information Officer &
S.D.M (NG),
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Block Development Office,
Najafgarh, New Delhi- 43.
RTI application filed on : 14/01/2010
PIO replied : 09/02/2010
First appeal filed on : 02/03/2010
First Appellate Authority Ordered on : 26/03/2010
Second Appeal received on : 16/04/2010
The Appellant wanted information regarding qualification of Mr. R.N. Kaushik (Nayak
Tehsildar).
Sl Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer
(PIO)
1. Details of Mr. R.N. Kaushik’s qualifications Intermediate.
also specifying posts held by him and places
where he had been posted.
2. Details of Mr. R.N. Kaushik’s assets and As L.D.C- 1) Educational Department
disclosure of properties bought and sold 2) S.A.D.
during his period of service. As U.D.C- 1) Educational Department.
2) Weights and Measures Department
As GrII1)G.A.D. Department
2) D.C. Office (South West) as Naib
Tehsildar till date.
Ground of First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information received from the PIO..
First Appellate Authority (FAA) ordered:
The information as available on record has been provided.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Page 1 of 3
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing. However, neither party appeared. The
appellant has not clearly stated the reasons for his dissatisfaction with the information provided
to him. However, from a perusal of the papers it appears that the list of assets sought by him of
Mr. R. N. Kaushik, Naib Tehsildar has not been provided. The PIO has given no reason for
denying this information. The commission has already ruled on the matter of disclosure of assets
of a public servant in its decision no. CIC/SG/A/2009/001436/4247 on 23 July 2009.
The Commission is giving the arguments based on which the decision was taken below:
“The Commission can allow denial of information only based on the exemptions listed
under Section 8 (1) of the act. The PIO has claimed that the information should not be disclosed
since it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j).
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.).
The phrase ‘disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest’ means that
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. The information sought in this case by the
appellant has certainly been obtained in the pursuit of a public activity.
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.
Therefore we can state that disclosure of information such as assets of a Public servant,
-which is routinely collected by the Public authority and routinely provided by the Public
servants,- cannot be construed as an invasion on the privacy of an individual. 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. Any other exceptions would have to be specifically justified. Besides the Supreme Court
has clearly ruled that even people who aspire to be public servants by getting elected have to
declare their property details. If people who aspire to be public servants must declare their
property details it is only logical that the details of assets of those who are public servants must
Page 2 of 3
be considered to be disclosable. Hence the exemption under Section 8(1) (j) cannot be applied in
the instant case.”
In view of this the list of assets of Mr. R. N. Kaushik, Naib Tehsildar will have to be disclosed to
the Appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information as described 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
03 June 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SC)
Page 3 of 3