Case Note & Summary
The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the Central Public Information Officer of the Madras High Court challenging an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) dated 11.01.2013. The second respondent, A. Sethu, had sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding complaints made against a judicial officer in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. The petitioner had partly furnished information but declined to disclose the complaints themselves, citing exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC directed disclosure of the complaints. The High Court examined the nature of the information sought and held that the complaints were personal information of the third-party judicial officer, having no relationship to any public activity or interest, as they were not acted upon and did not form part of any disciplinary proceedings. The court emphasized that Section 8(1)(j) exempts personal information unless it involves a larger public interest, which was not established. The court also noted that the CIC had not considered the applicability of Section 8(1)(j) and had erroneously directed disclosure. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIC was quashed, and the writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Right to Information - Exemption from Disclosure - Personal Information - Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - Complaints against a judicial officer that were not acted upon and not forming part of any disciplinary proceedings are 'personal information' having no relationship to any public activity or interest - The Central Information Commission's direction to disclose such complaints was held to be erroneous and quashed - Held that the information sought was exempt under Section 8(1)(j) as it was personal and unrelated to any public activity (Paras 5-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether complaints made against a judicial officer in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service, which were not acted upon, constitute 'personal information' exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and whether the Central Information Commission erred in directing disclosure of such information.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order of the Central Information Commission dated 11.01.2013.
Law Points
- Right to Information Act
- 2005
- Section 8(1)(j)
- personal information
- public authority
- judicial officer
- complaints
- disclosure
- privacy
- public interest
Case Details
Dr. Anita Sumanth, Mummineni Sudheer Kumar
Mr.V.Vijay Shankar (for petitioner), Mr.Madhana Gopala Rao (for R1)
The Central Public Information Officer, Madras High Court, Chennai
1. The Central Information Commission, Rep.by its Registrar, New Delhi; 2. A.Sethu
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 Central Information Commission directing disclosure of information under the RTI Act.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the Central Information Commission in File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/000863 & 847 dated 11.01.2013.
Filing Reason
The petitioner challenged the CIC order directing disclosure of complaints against a judicial officer, which the petitioner claimed were exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Previous Decisions
The second respondent had filed an RTI request on 21.03.2007, which was partly disposed on 23.11.2011. An appeal was filed on 19.09.2011. The CIC passed the impugned order on 11.01.2013.
Issues
Whether the complaints against a judicial officer, which were not acted upon, constitute 'personal information' exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Whether the Central Information Commission erred in directing disclosure of such information without considering the exemption under Section 8(1)(j).
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the information sought was personal information of a third-party judicial officer, exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, as it had no relationship to any public activity or interest.
The first respondent (CIC) supported its order, but the court found that the CIC had not considered the applicability of Section 8(1)(j).
Ratio Decidendi
Information regarding complaints against a judicial officer that were not acted upon and do not form part of any disciplinary proceedings is 'personal information' under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, exempt from disclosure unless a larger public interest is established. The CIC erred in directing disclosure without considering this exemption.
Judgment Excerpts
The information sought is in regard to certain complaints made as against an officer in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service.
The complaints have not been acted upon and do not form part of any disciplinary proceedings.
The information sought is personal information of the third party having no relationship to any public activity or interest.
The CIC has not considered the applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.
We are of the view that the order of the CIC is erroneous and liable to be set aside.
Procedural History
The second respondent filed an RTI request on 21.03.2007. The petitioner partly furnished information on 23.11.2011. An appeal was filed on 19.09.2011. The CIC passed the impugned order on 11.01.2013. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Right to Information Act, 2005: Section 8(1)(j)
