CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001419/SG/14384
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001419/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Harish Kumar Yadav
Dr. Ambedkar Road
Nellikunji, Kasargod- 671121
Kerala
Respondent : Mr. Sinoy
PIO & Dy. General Manager
Syndicate Bank
Regional Office
Hampankatta, Mangalore 575001
RTI application filed on : 23/01/2009
PIO replied on : 14/12/2009
First Appeal filed on : 29/12/2009
First Appellate Authority order on : 08/01/2010
Second Appeal received on : 08/10/2010
Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought for the following information pertaining to Mrs. Aruna (W/o Late Narayan
Naik, Officer) Syndicate Bank, Attender, Syndicate Bank, Putter Main Branch:
a) The date of appointment of Mrs. Aruna in the Bank as Attendent
b) Whether her appointment is on compassionate grounds? i.e. due to demise of her
husband. If not on which ground she was appointed withal copies of connected paper/
documents.
c) Copy of her appointment order, along with copies of applications for her claim from
appointment.
d) Total amount of terminal benefits paid to legal heir of Late Mr. Narayan Naik, H/o Mrs.
Aruna.
e) Total amount of terminal benefits entitled to Late Mr. Narayan Naik mentioning name
of schemes like EPF Gratuity.
f) Mode of Payment of terminal benefits of Late Mr. Narayan Naik paid to his legal heirs
with proof of payments like copy of cheques or copy of credit voucher to the
beneficiary's accounts.
g) Total amount of liabilities of Late Mr. Narayana Naik in the bank as on the date of his
death furnishing loan a/cs with outstanding dues and branch name.
h) Total amount credited to his loan accounts out of his terminal benefits due for him.
Reply of PIO:
Information sought by the Applicant cannot be provided as the same is exempted under section 8 (1)
(j) & (e) of RTI Act, 2005.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The Appellant was not satisfied with the reply of PIO.
Page 1 of 3
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA has upheld the reply of the PIO
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The Appellant is not satisfied with the reply of the PIO and the order of FAA.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Sinoy, PIO & Dy. General Manager on video conference from NIC-Mangalore
Studio;
The PIO has refused to give the information on all the queries claiming exemption under
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. As far as the first 03 queries are concerned these seek information
about the conditions of employment of a particular employee. The Commission does not agree that this
information could be considered an invasion on the privacy of an individual.
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 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 been given in the course of 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. Also when a Citizen provides information in discharge of a statutory
obligation this too is 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 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.
Certain human rights such as liberty, freedom of expression or right to life are universal and
therefore would apply uniformly to all human beings worldwide. However, the concept of ‘privacy’ is a
cultural notion, related to social norms, and different societies would look at these differently.
Therefore referring to the UK Data protection act or the laws of other countries to define ‘privacy’
cannot be considered a valid exercise to constrain the Citizen’s fundamental Right to Information in
India. Parliament has not codified the right to privacy 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. The Supreme of India has ruled that Citizens have a right to know about
charges against candidates for elections as well as details of their assets, since they desire to offer
themselves for public service. It is obvious then that those who are public servants cannot claim
exemption from disclosure of charges against them or details of their assets. Given our dismal record
of misgovernance and rampant corruption which colludes to deny Citizens their essential rights and
Page 2 of 3
dignity, it is in the fitness of things that the Citizen’s Right to Information is given greater primacy
with regard to 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.
In view of the above the commission does not agree with the PIO’s contention that queries (a), (b) &
(c) are exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information on queries (a), (b) & (c) to the
Appellant before 20 September 2011.
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
05 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (AM)
Page 3 of 3