9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Secretaries and Secretaries to the Government of India and he was to be provided by the Department of Personnel and Training ('DoPT'), Government of India copies of the documents and records, as might be specified by him after inspection. Further, it was held that since Mr. Kejriwal had already been allowed inspection of the files of the appointments of officers in the rank of Deputy Secretary, Director and Joint Secretary, the denial of photocopies of the documents was not justified. These documents included the annual confidential rolls ('ACRs'), the grading of the officers, their vigilance clearance etc. However, since Mr. Kejriwal himself stated that he did not want copies of the ACRs of each of the officers "but required only the chart which contained the grading of the officers" and "since such chart would not contain any personal information", the CIC directed the DoPT to provide copies of the chart to him within 20 working days. 3. Mr. Kejriwal has filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6614 of 2008 seeking implementation of the above order dated 12th June 2008 of the CIC. The Union of India ('UOI') has filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8999 of 2008 challenging the said orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than the others for that post." 6. While some of the information was provided, the Central Public Information Officers ('CPIOs') justified the withholding of the remaining information stating that information relating to the Cabinet Secretary and the Secretaries of the other departments was exempted under Section 8 of the RTI Act. Secondly, the information concerning empanelment of the officers was personal to those officers and had no relationship with any public activity or interest. It would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individuals and, therefore, could not be disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Thirdly, the records which form part of the decision of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (hereafter 'the ACC') and the recommendations thereon were 'privileged' 'and could not be disclosed under Section 8 of the RTI Act. 7. The Appellate Authority remanded the matter to the CPIOs by separate orders passed on February 2006 and 13th March 2006. Among the observations made by the Appellate Authority was that the information sought by Mr. Kejriwal pertained to a third party and fell within the provisions of Section 11(1) of the RT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the concerned CPIO informed the CIC that Mr. Kejriwal had been allowed to inspect those files as well. However, the copies of the examination report as sought by Mr. Kejriwal included the officers' ACRs, gradings, their vigilance clearance reports etc. Therefore, providing that information would attract Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. As regards appointments at the level of Additional Secretary and Secretary, the CPIO informed that the Cabinet Secretariat had been asked to provide the information and Mr. Kejriwal had been requested to inspect the files relating to the appointments at the level of Additional Secretary and Secretary. 12. The CIC apparently was satisfied and the Petitioner was informed by a letter dated 18th April 2007 that with the above compliance no further action was required. However, on 20th April 2007 Mr. Kejriwal filed an application before the CIC seeking a review. The CIC on 14th July 2007 passed an order dismissing the review petition. This was challenged by the Petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 6777 of 2007 in this Court. By an order dated 14th September 2007 this Court remanded the case to the CIC to be heard by a Bench constituted by the CIC. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs at the level of Deputy Secretary, Director and Joint Secretary, inspection of the files had already been done and the CIC noted that "the only question that now remained was whether photocopies of the concerned files could be given or not". Since the DoPT had not furnished any proper information, the CIC ordered that Mr. Kejriwal should be furnished with copies of the documents he was seeking within 20 days. 16. As regards the files concerning the empanelment of Additional Secretaries and Secretaries, the CIC again directed that Mr. Kejriwal should be provided the copies of the documents and records after inspection. 17. In view of the narrow issue that was examined by the CIC in its impugned order, both Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal and Mr. S.K. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India confined their arguments to the question whether providing copies of the above documents, as sought by Mr. Kejriwal, would attract the provisions of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. 18. In order to appreciate their respective contentions, it is first necessary to refer to Section 11(1) of the RTI Act which reads as u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of an individual officer and their collation even in the form of a chart would be information personal to such officers and has to be viewed as 'third party information'. It is submitted that in such event the mandatory procedure outlined under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act has to be followed. 21. This Court has considered the above submissions. It requires to be noticed that under the RTI Act information that is totally exempt from disclosure has been listed out in Section 8. The concept of privacy is incorporated in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This provision would be a defense available to a person about whom information is being sought. Such defence could be taken by a third party in a proceeding under Section 11(1) when upon being issued notice such third party might want to resist disclosure on the grounds of privacy. This is a valuable right of a third party that encapsulates the principle of natural justice inasmuch as the statute mandates that there cannot be a disclosure of information pertaining to or which 'relates to' such third party without affording such third party an opportunity of being heard on whether such disclosure should be ordered. This is a procedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... information relating to a third party would also be third party information within the meaning of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. Information provided by such third party would of course also be third party information. These two distinct categories of third party information have been recognized under Section 11(1) of the Act. It is not possible for this Court in the circumstances to read the word 'or' as 'and'. The mere fact that inspection of such files was permitted, without following the mandatory procedure under Section 11(1) does not mean that, at the stage of furnishing copies of the documents inspected, the said procedure can be waived. In fact, the procedure should have been followed even prior to permitting inspection, but now the clock cannot be put back as far as that is concerned. 25. The logic of the Section 11(1) RTI Act is plain. Once the information seeker is provided information relating to a third party, it is no longer in the private domain. Such information seeker can then disclose in turn such information to the whole world. There may be an officer who may not want the whole world to know why he or she was overlooked for promotion. The defence of privacy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
