About This File
Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the matter of Subhash v. State Information Commission, Civil Writ Petition No.17718 of 2014 (O&M) dated 26.7.2016 had held as under:
“This Court is of the opinion that reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case (supra) in the facts and circumstances of the case was not justified. A perusal of the said judgment would go on to show that information sought was pertaining to personal matter of the service career and also details of assets and liabilities of the respondent which was sought under the Act. Resultantly, the Apex Court after examining Section 8(1)(j) of the Act came to the conclusion that the gifts which were accepted by the third respondent, his family members, friends and relatives which were found mention in the Income Tax Returns would be personal information which could be denied under the above said provisions. It was further held that copies of the memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment and details of the investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions could not be given to the applicant since it would amount to unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual.
In the present case as noticed from the application, no personal information as such is being sought for against any one officer. General detail of the corruption cases pending against the serving and retired public servants and as to whether in spite of registration of such corruption cases, the service benefits to such officers had been given or not and which officer had passed such orders were sought for. It is thus apparent that what is being sought is the information relating to corruption and it is not the information pertaining to a particular individual as such. The respondent- Commissioner, however, in spite of noticing the fact that the appellant had raised this issue has not given any valid reason while upholding the orders of authorities below and has only given a stamp of approval to the same. The Division Bench of this Court in First Appellate Authority-cum-Additional Director General of Police and another Vs. 7 of 11 *** Chief Information Commissioner, Haryana and another 2011 AIR (Punjab) 168 while noting the purpose of the Act, held that information pertaining to corruption is a relevant document and cannot be denied. It was held that such information leads to transparent administration which is antithesis of corruption.”