2013 (4) TMI 399 - SC - Indian Laws

RTI Application - seeking the copies of all note sheets and correspondence pages of file relating to one Ms. Jyoti Balasundram Member/CESTAT - whether Single Judge was correct to held that the information sought by the appellant herein is the third party information wherein third party may plead a privacy defence and the proper question would be as to whether divulging of such an information is in the public interest or not also affirmed by Division Bench - Held that - As decided in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner 2012 (10) TMI 218 - SUPREME COURT where Central Information Commissioner denied the information pertaining to the service career of the third party to the said case and also denied the details relating to assets liabilities moveable and immovable properties of the third party on the ground that the information sought for was qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. In that case this Court also considered the question whether the orders of censure/punishment etc. are personal information and the performance of an employee/officer in an organization commonly known as Annual Confidential Report can be disclosed or not. Thus in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent show-cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course in a given case if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right. The petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide public interest in seeking information the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In view of the discussion made above and the decision in this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande(supra) as the appellant sought for inspection of documents relating to the ACR of the Member CESTAT inter alia relating to adverse entries in the ACR and the follow up action taken therein on the question of integrity no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench whereby the order passed by the learned Single Judge was affirmed. In absence of any merit the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the information sought by the appellant falls under the category of "third party information" and if it can be disclosed in the public interest.
2. Interpretation and application of Section 8(1)(j) and Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
3. Conflicting decisions by different High Courts on the disclosure of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and related documents.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Third Party Information and Public Interest:
The appellant filed an RTI application seeking copies of note sheets and correspondence related to a public servant's ACR. The CPIO denied the request, citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts personal information from disclosure unless it serves a larger public interest. The appellant argued that the information pertains to the integrity of a public servant and thus is of public interest. However, the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court upheld the denial, stating that ACRs are personal and their disclosure requires a public interest justification.

2. Interpretation and Application of Section 8(1)(j) and Section 11:
Section 8(1)(j) exempts personal information from disclosure unless it serves a public interest. The courts consistently held that ACRs are personal information. Section 11 mandates a procedure for disclosing third-party information, requiring notice to the concerned party and an assessment of whether public interest outweighs privacy concerns. The Division Bench emphasized that the procedure under Section 11(1) is mandatory, and the privacy defense of the concerned officer must be considered.

3. Conflicting Decisions by High Courts:
The appellant cited conflicting judgments from the Kerala High Court and the Delhi High Court. The Kerala High Court in *Centre for Earth Sciences Studies vs. Anson Sebastian* held that documents from a domestic enquiry are not personal information and can be disclosed. In contrast, the Delhi High Court in *Arvind Kejriwal vs. Central Public Information Officer* upheld the confidentiality of ACRs, emphasizing the mandatory procedure under Section 11(1) for third-party information. The Supreme Court in *Girish Ramchandra Deshpande* also held that ACRs and related documents are personal information and their disclosure requires a public interest justification.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court, affirming that ACRs are personal information exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) unless a larger public interest is demonstrated. The Court emphasized the mandatory procedure under Section 11(1) for disclosing third-party information. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Division Bench was affirmed.