Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Chalisgaon Education Society and its President, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 3.7.2013 passed by the State Information Commissioner, Nashik, directing them to provide information to respondent No.2, Nanabhau Jangalrao Pawar, under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner is an educational trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Respondent No.2 had sought information on 27 subjects spanning from 1996 to 2010. The petitioner denied information on subjects 1 to 6, claiming it was of personal nature and not related to public interest. Respondent No.2 appealed to the First Appellate Officer of the trust, which was rejected, and then approached the State Information Commission, which allowed the appeal and directed disclosure. The petitioners contended that the State Information Commission was not a multi-member bench as required by law, and that the information sought was personal and exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The court held that the petitioner trust is a public authority under the RTI Act and is bound to provide information. The exemption under Section 8(1)(j) is not absolute; the information sought pertained to the public activities of the trust, and public interest in transparency outweighed any privacy concerns. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Commission's order.
Headnote
A) Right to Information - Public Authority - Educational Trust - The petitioner, an educational trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, is a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and is obligated to provide information sought by citizens. (Paras 5-6)
B) Right to Information - Exemption - Personal Information - Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - The exemption for personal information under Section 8(1)(j) is not absolute and must be balanced against public interest. Information relating to the public activities of a public authority, even if personal, may be disclosed if public interest outweighs the privacy interest. (Paras 7-10)
C) Right to Information - State Information Commission - Powers - The State Information Commission has the authority to direct disclosure of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and its orders are subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the information sought by respondent No.2 from the petitioner trust, which was denied on the ground of being personal in nature, is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and whether the State Information Commission's order directing disclosure is sustainable.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order dated 3.7.2013 passed by the State Information Commissioner, Nashik, is upheld. The petitioners are directed to provide the information sought by respondent No.2 within four weeks.
Law Points
- Right to Information Act
- 2005
- Section 8(1)(j) exemption for personal information
- public interest override
- educational trust as public authority
- maintainability of writ petition against State Information Commission order
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (11) 19
Writ Petition No.7056 of 2013
Shri N.B.Suryawanshi for Petitioners, Shri S.T.Shelke Special Counsel a/w Shri S.D.Kaldate AGP for Respondent 1, Shri P.P.Chavan for Respondent 2
Chalisgaon Education Society and Another
State of Maharashtra and Another
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the State Information Commission directing disclosure of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the order dated 3.7.2013 passed by the State Information Commissioner, Nashik, directing them to provide information to respondent No.2.
Filing Reason
The petitioners claimed that the information sought was personal in nature and exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, and that the State Information Commission was not a multi-member bench as required.
Previous Decisions
The First Appellate Officer of the petitioner trust had rejected the appeal of respondent No.2. The State Information Commission allowed the appeal and directed disclosure.
Issues
Whether the petitioner trust is a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005?
Whether the information sought is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as personal information?
Whether the State Information Commission's order is sustainable?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the information sought was personal and not related to public interest, and that the State Information Commission was not a multi-member bench as required by law.
Respondent No.2 argued that the information pertained to the public activities of the trust and was not exempt under Section 8(1)(j).
Ratio Decidendi
An educational trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act is a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The exemption under Section 8(1)(j) for personal information is not absolute and must yield to public interest when the information relates to the public activities of the authority.
Judgment Excerpts
The basic contention, by way of a grievance of the petitioners is that the Division Bench of this Court, having concluded that the State Information Commission ought to be a multi member Bench, the State Government, as yet, has either not taken a note of the pronouncement of this Court or is not taking steps for appointing a multi member State Information Commission.
The petitioner – institute is an educational trust, registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act.
The information sought by respondent No.2, vide his application dated 5.5.2010, was in relation to about 27 subjects during the period of 1996 upto 2010.
Procedural History
Respondent No.2 filed an RTI application on 5.5.2010. The petitioner trust denied information on subjects 1 to 6 on 5.7.2010. Respondent No.2 appealed to the First Appellate Officer, which was rejected. He then approached the State Information Commission, which allowed the appeal on 3.7.2013. The petitioners filed the present writ petition on 26.11.2014, and the court stayed the impugned order. After hearing, the petition was dismissed.
Acts & Sections
- Right to Information Act, 2005: Section 8(1)(j)
- Bombay Public Trusts Act:
