Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by Deepak Pandharinath Vaingankar, a public servant, challenging an order dated 5 July 2018 passed by the State Chief Information Commissioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The dispute centered on whether personal information of the petitioner, including his date of appointment, working hours, educational qualifications, and other details, could be disclosed to the respondent No.1, Suryakant Babu Naik, under the RTI Act. The respondent No.1 had filed an application under Section 6(1) of the Act seeking the petitioner's personal particulars. The Public Information Officer initially declined the information on 11 October 2017, finding that the application was motivated by personal harassment and lacked public interest. The First Appellate Authority dismissed the respondent No.1's first appeal on 4 January 2018. However, on a second appeal, the State Chief Information Commissioner allowed the disclosure on 5 July 2018, directing the Public Information Officer to furnish the information. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court. The petitioner contended that the information sought was personal in nature, had no relationship to any public activity or interest, and would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy, thus being exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He relied on Supreme Court decisions in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner and Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam. The respondent No.1 argued that no reason was required to be given for seeking information under Section 6(2), and that under the proviso to Section 8(1)(j), information that could be disclosed to Parliament or State Legislature could also be disclosed to a citizen. He also raised a procedural point regarding notice under Section 11. The High Court examined the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, including Sections 2(f), 2(h), 2(j), 6, 8(1)(j), and 11. It held that personal information of an employee, such as appointment date, educational qualifications, and working hours, falls within the expression 'personal information' in Section 8(1)(j) and is exempt from disclosure unless the authority is satisfied that larger public interest justifies it. The court found no such larger public interest was demonstrated. It further held that the mere fact that information could be disclosed to Parliament or State Legislature did not entitle a citizen to access it. The court quashed the order of the State Chief Information Commissioner, allowing the writ petition and upholding the exemption. The decision affirmed the principle that personal details of a public servant, unrelated to public activity, are protected from disclosure under the RTI Act to prevent unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Headnote
A) Right to Information - Exemption from Disclosure - Personal Information - Section 8(1)(j), Right to Information Act, 2005 - The court held that personal information of a public servant such as date of appointment, educational qualifications, working hours, etc. is exempt from disclosure as it relates to personal information having no relationship to public activity or interest, and disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. Held that unless larger public interest is demonstrated, such information cannot be disclosed. (Paras 12-13, 16) B) Right to Information - Scope of Section 6(2) - No Reason Required - Section 6(2), Right to Information Act, 2005 - The court noted that an applicant seeking information is not required to give any reason for the request, but this does not override the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) when personal information is involved without public interest. (Paras 5, 11) C) Right to Information - Third Party Notice - Section 11, Right to Information Act, 2005 - The court observed that where information relates to a third party treated as confidential, the Public Information Officer must give five days' notice to the third party. In this case, no such notice was given, but the petitioner had voluntarily filed objections, which the lower authorities had considered. (Paras 14-15) D) Right to Information - Judicial Precedent - Section 8(1)(j), Right to Information Act, 2005 - Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, (2013) 1 SCC 212 - The court relied on the Supreme Court's holding that details disclosed in income tax returns and performance of an employee are personal information exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) unless larger public interest justifies disclosure. Held that petitioner cannot claim such information as a matter of right. (Para 16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether personal information of a public servant such as date of appointment, educational qualifications, working hours, etc. is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and whether the order of the State Chief Information Commissioner directing its disclosure was valid.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the State Chief Information Commissioner dated 05.07.2018, and held that the personal information of the petitioner (date of appointment, educational qualifications, working hours, etc.) is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as it relates to personal information having no relationship to any public activity or interest, and disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. No larger public interest was demonstrated.
Law Points
- Personal information of a public servant having no relationship to public activity or interest is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act
- 2005
- unless larger public interest justifies disclosure
- Mere fact that information can be disclosed to Parliament or State Legislature does not entitle a citizen to seek it
- Disclosure of personal details like appointment date
- educational qualifications
- working hours constitutes unwarranted invasion of privacy
- Section 6(2) does not require applicant to give reasons but does not override Section 8(1)(j) exemption
- Section 11 requires notice to third party before disclosing confidential information
