CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal Nos. CIC/WB/A/2007/001547 dated 3 -12-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri R.K. Arya
Respondent: Deputy Commissioners Police (DCP), Economic Offences Wing
(EOW).
Facts
Both these Appeals in file Nos. CIC/WB/A/2007/001547 and
CIC/WB/A/2007/001610 are identical except in that the information sought is
with regard to two different Police Officers: Inspector Shri R.K. Gulia in File No.
CIC/WB/A/2007/001547 and Sub Inspector Shri Suresh Lakra in File No.
CIC/WB/A/2007/001610. The information sought in both the cases is as
follows, with the name of Sub Inspector Shri Suresh Lakra replacing that of
Inspector Gulia in the application concerning SI Lakra.
“1. Please tell the residential address of Mr. R.K. Gulia,
Inspector (EOW) crime, Delhi Police having office at
Qutub Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi.
2. Please supply the copy of Income Tax return filed by Mr.
R.K. Gulia, Inspector, to Income Tax Department and to
you for the years 2002 to 2006.
3. Please give the details of properties, which have been
furnished by Mr. R.K. Gulia, Inspector (EOW) Crime,
Delhi Police at the time to join the service for the year
2005 and 2006.
4. Please tell what is gross salary and carrying home salary
of Mr. R.K. Gulia, Inspector (EOW) Crime, Delhi Police.
In both cases an identical response was received dated 2.4.2007
refusing the information/documents, sought u/s 8 (1) (j) of the Right to
Information Act, 2005. In both cases appeals were moved on 20.4.2007 and
an identical decision dated 15.5.2007 given by Shri Ranjit Narayan, JCP
(Crime) as follows:
“Having carefully gone through the contents of appeal and
material available on record, it is found that the appellant has
sought personal information mentioned above in respect of Inspr.
R. K. Gulia, which has no relationship to any public activity or
interest. Undoubtedly, disclosure of this personal information1
would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the
individual. The exemption of information u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI
Act, 2005, has, therefore, been correctly applied by the PIO. The
decision of PIO is upheld.”
Appellant’s prayer before us is also identical and reads as follows:
“Relief sought against the act and conduct/ gross
negligence of the said PIO and the First Appellate Authority
under Right to Information Act, 2005.”
In both cases penalty has been sought against the CPIO and Appellate
Authority. Four appeals were heard together on 13-4-2009. The following are
present.
Appellants
Shri Rajender Kumar Arya
Shri Ramesh Kumar
Respondents
Shri K.K. Vyas, DCP
Shri Ramesh Chander, Inspector
Shri M.K. Mishra, S.I.
Shri Ganga Sahai Meena, ACP/HQ/E
In the present two cases DCP Shri K.K. Vyas has clarified that the
officers concerned are no longer with EOW but are (i) Mr. R.K. Gulia with
Crime Branch and (ii) Shri Suresh Lakra with Security. Although, already
explained to DCP at least part of the information sought by the appellant
regarding these officers is fully disclosable suo moto u/s 4 (1) (b) (ix) and
(x) of the RTI Act, before ordering full disclosure of the information sought
both parties being a third party in these cases we deemed it necessary
that we give them opportunity to be heard. The hearing in both these
st
cases was, therefore, adjourned to 1 May, 2009 at 11.30 a.m. when
appellant and third parties were directed to appear. The DCP, EOW
having made his points need not appear.
Accordingly the case was heard once more on 15-5-2009. The
following are present
Appellants
Shri Rajender Kumar Arya
Shri R. K. Goyal.
2
Respondent
Shri Ram Kanwar Gulia, Inspector.
Shri Lakra appeared for hearing at 12.45 p.m. He submitted that first
he had gone to Old JNU campus as he was not aware as to where he has to
report because he received the message over ‘phone a day before and could
not determine where he has to report. He therefore sought opportunity for
further hearing which has been accepted and accordingly the hearing in File
No. CIC/WB/A/2007/001610. is adjourned to 12th June, 2009 at 12.30 p.m.
when Shri Suresh Lakra will be present. The appellant may also appear if he
wishes so.
. We have therefore heard only appeal in file No. CIC/WB/A/2007/001547.
Shri Gulia submitted that the answers to question Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are
contained in documents submitted by him to the Department. He has no
objection to the disclosure of this information. However, on question 1 and
that part of the Income Tax returns which disclose his residential address he
would take as an invasion of privacy and also as a potential threat to his
family.
Appellant Shri Arya on the other hand submitted that he wishes to
pursue charges of corruption against respondents who he alleges have
`looted’ him. This corruption will be established from disclosure of their style
of living. It is clarified by Shri Gulia in response that he is living in private
accommodation and is not accommodated in any government
accommodation.
Section 4 (1) (b) (ix) and (x) of the RTI Act mandate disclosure of
information regarding employees in any department. These two sub Sections
read as follows:
4 (1) Every public authority shall (b) publish within one hundred
and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,-
(ix) a directory of its officers and employees;
3
(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers
and employees, including the system of compensation as
provided in its regulations;
The question before us is that in providing the directory of employees
and information regarding their remuneration is the public authority required to
include information regarding personal residence particularly if that personal
residence is not in government accommodation. This would require to be
decided keeping in view that even if a government employee does not reside
in accommodation provided by the Government his rent is subsidised by
government allowance in the form of HRA. Moreover, every govt official is
required provide a residential address to the office in which he/she is working
The issue, therefore, is, can disclosure of this information amount to invasion
of privacy which would lead to exemption under sub Section (j) of Section 8
(1).
DECISION NOTICE:
Each Government official up to the level of President has an official
residence which is official because it is occupied by him in the capacity of the
official position which he/she holds. It is quite possible that an official does
not actually occupy his or her official residence, but retains the same only for
official purposes. The official residence will be that which has been notified by
the official to his or her department which is in any case required to be done
and necessary for a Dep’t in providing a directory of its officials on its website.
A public authority is, therefore, required not only to publish the address and
contact information including telephone numbers of an official serving in that
public authority but also the residential address of his/her official residence
together with telephone numbers, all of which are paid for through the public
exchequer. In this matter it is clear that even if an official opts to retain his
private residence as his official residence he is entitled to a house rent
allowance to cover the cost of the rent of that accommodation. We cannot,
therefore, hold that disclosure of the residential address of an official holding
public office is private information exempt from disclosure under sub-Section
(j) of Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act 2005. This information merits uploading as
4
part of a directory of officials on the website of every public authority as
mandated under sub-Section (ix) of Section 4 (1) (b).
There can be an exception to this Rule if the position held by the
official concerned or the work on which he/she is engaged is of so sensitive a
nature that any such disclosure could lead to apprehension of danger to the
life of physical safety of the person, in which case it will merit exemption from
disclosure of information. However, a conscious decision of this nature will
have to be taken with regard to each such official failing which this exemption
cannot be claimed in a general manner.
Therefore, while the information asked at para 1 of each of the
applications will be dealt with as above information sought at para 2, 3 and 4
will be provided to appellant by the concerned CPIOs within 10 working days
of the date of issue of this decision notice. They will also update this
information with regard to their entire staff on their website as mandated u/s 4
(1) (ix) and (x). The appeal is therefore allowed but this decision will apply
only in the case of file no CIC/WB/A/2007/001547. There will be no costs
Reserved in the hearing this Decision is announced in open chamber on
this nineteenth day of May 2009. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
19-5-2009
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
19-5-2009
5