Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
akhilesh yadav

IT returns, performance report out of RTI ambit: SC

Recommended Posts

akhilesh yadav

IT returns, performance report out of RTI ambit: SC

 

Reported by PTI in business-standard.com on Oct 4, 2012

IT returns, performance report out of RTI ambit: SC | Business Standard

 

The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are "personal information" which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest is involved.

The apex court added that under the transparency law, information pertaining to the performance of an employee or officer cannot be made public as it is a matter between the employee and the employer which falls under the expression of "personal information" and cannot be claimed as a right by others.

"The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless a larger public interest is involved and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information," a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra said.

"The performance of an employee or officer in an organisation 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," it further said.

The court said "the disclosure of such information 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 of 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," it said.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sharmajee

News appeared in Dainik Bhaskar, apex court ruled that service record, IT returns not covered under RTI, this will be an invasion of privacy of an individual.

Dainik Bhaskar e-Paper, jaipur, e-Paper, jaipur e Paper, e Newspaper jaipur, jaipur e Paper, jaipur ePaper

 

(unable to give link to this article, please refer page 17 on this link.)

 

 

कर्मचारी का सर्विस रिकॉर्ड आरटीआई में नहीं आता

 

 

[TABLE=width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD] कर्मचारी का सर्विस रिकॉर्ड आरटीआई में नहीं आता[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]राकेश भटनागरत्ननई दिल्ली. सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा है कि किसी कर्मचारी का सर्विस रिकॉर्ड और आयकर रिटर्न की जानकारी आरटीआई के तहत नहीं ली जा सकती। यह उसकी निजता का हनन होगा।

 

जस्टिस केएस राधाकृष्णन और दीपक मिश्रा की बेंच ने गुरुवार को यह आदेश दिया। अदालत ने कहा कि किसी कर्मचारी का प्रदर्शन मूल रूप से कर्मचारी और उसके नियोक्ता के बीच का मसला है।

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jetley

There is contradiction between both the news reports. While the first suggests that it is ACR/APAR of the employee that is exempted from disclosure, the latter suggests his entire service record is exempt.

 

If anyone has access to the decision copy, please post it here so that the issue can be clarified completely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sajib Nandi

Reported by Tribuneindia.com on October 8, 2012

The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Main News

 

The Supreme Court has ruled that even personal particulars of public servants relating to salary, annual confidential report (ACR), assets and departmental action could be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, if the competent authority was convinced that this would be in public interest.

 

Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) or the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed, but the RTI petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right,” a Bench comprising Justices KS Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra held.

 

The Bench acknowledged that performance of an employee/officer in an organisation was primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects were governed by the service rules which fell under “personal information”.

 

Such information had no relationship to any public activity or public interest and the disclosure of the details “would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual”, the Bench noted.

 

Further, details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns “are personal information which stand exempted from disclosure” under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Similarly, copies of all memos issued to an employee, show cause notices and orders of censure or punishment would also qualify as personal information, the Bench clarified.

 

However, these particulars could be ordered to be disclosed by the CPIO, the SPIO or the Appellate Authority in a “larger public interest”, the Supreme Court ruled.

 

The Bench made the clarifications while dismissing a petition filed by one GP Deshpande seeking details of the service and other personal details of a Regional Provident Fund officer at Nagpur, who was facing a criminal case. The petitioner had failed to prove that this would be in public interest, the Bench held on October 3.

 

[TABLE=width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD=width: 100%] What the court says

 

Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed, but the RTI petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right. [/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sajib Nandi

The Judgment dt. 3.10.2012 of the Hon'ble SCI in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012 (@ CC 14781/2012) is uploaded for information of members:-

 

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012

(@ CC 14781/2012)

 

 

 

Girish Ramchandra Deshpande .. Petitioner

Versus

Cen. Information Commr. & Ors. .. Respondents

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

1. Delay condoned.

 

2. We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether the Central

Information Commissioner (for short ‘the CIC’) acting under the Right to

Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the RTI Act’) was right in denying

information regarding the third respondent’s personal matters pertaining to

his service career and also denying the details of his assets and

liabilities, movable and immovable properties 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.

 

 

3. The petitioner herein had submitted an application on 27.8.2008

before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour,

Government of India) calling for various details relating to third

respondent, who was employed as an Enforcement Officer in Sub-Regional

Office, Akola, now working in the State of Madhya Pradesh. As many as 15

queries were made to which the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur

gave the following reply on 15.9.2008:

 

”As to Point No.1: Copy of appointment order of Shri A.B. Lute, is

in 3 pages. You have sought the details of

salary in respect of Shri A.B. Lute, which

relates to personal information the disclosures

of which has no relationship to any public

activity or interest, it would cause

unwarranted invasion of the privacy of

individual hence denied as per the RTI

provision under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.

 

 

As to Point No.2: Copy of order of granting Enforcement Officer

Promotion to Shri A.B. Lute, is in 3 Number.

Details of salary to the post along with

statutory and other deductions of Mr. Lute is

denied to provide as per RTI provisions under

Section 8(1)(j) for the reasons mentioned

above.

 

 

As to Point NO.3: All the transfer orders of Shri A.B. Lute, are

in 13 Numbers. Salary details is rejected as

per the provision under Section 8(1)(j) for the

reason mentioned above.

 

 

As to Point No.4: The copies of memo, show cause notice, censure

issued to Mr. Lute, are not being provided on

the ground that it would cause unwarranted

invasion of the privacy of the individual and

has no relationship to any public activity or

interest. Please see RTI provision under

Section 8(1)(j).

 

 

As to Point No.5: Copy of EPF (Staff & Conditions) Rules 1962 is

in 60 pages.

 

 

As to Point No.6: Copy of return of assets and liabilities in

respect of Mr. Lute cannot be provided as per

the provision of RTI Act under Section 8(1)(j)

as per the reason explained above at point

No.1.

 

 

As to Point No.7: Details of investment and other related details

are rejected as per the provision of RTI Act

under Section 8(1)(j) as per the reason

explained above at point No.1.

 

 

As to Point No.8: Copy of report of item wise and value wise

details of gifts accepted by Mr. Lute, is

rejected as per the provisions of RTI Act under

Section 8(1)(j) as per the reason explained

above at point No.1.

 

 

As to Point No.9: Copy of details of movable, immovable

properties of Mr. Lute, the request to provide

the same is rejected as per the RTI Provisions

under Section 8(1)(j).

 

 

As to Point No.10: Mr. Lute is not claiming for TA/DA for

attending the criminal case pending at JMFC,

Akola.

 

 

As to Point No.11: Copy of Notification is in 2 numbers.

 

 

As to Point No.12: Copy of certified true copy of charge sheet

issued to Mr. Lute – The matter pertains with

head Office, Mumbai. Your application is being

forwarded to Head Office, Mumbai as per Section

6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005.

 

 

As to Point No.13: Certified True copy of complete enquiry

proceedings initiated against Mr. Lute – It

would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of

individuals and has no relationship to any

public activity or interest. Please see RTI

provisions under Section 8(1)(j).

 

 

As to Point No.14: It would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy

of individuals and has no relationship to any

public activity or interest, hence denied to

provide.

 

 

As to Point No.15: Certified true copy of second show cause notice

– It would cause unwarranted invasion of

privacy of individuals and has no relationship

to any public activity or interest, hence

denied to provide.”

 

 

 

 

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the CIC. The

CIC passed the order on 18.6.2009, the operative portion of the order reads

as under:

 

“The question for consideration is whether the aforesaid information

sought by the Appellant can be treated as ‘personal information’ as

defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. It may be

pertinent to mention that this issue came up before the Full Bench of

the Commission in Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2008/000628 (Milap Choraria v.

Central Board of Direct Taxes) and the Commission vide its decision

dated 15.6.2009 held that “the Income Tax return have been rightly

held to be personal information exempted from disclosure under clause

(j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act by the CPIO and the Appellate

Authority, and the appellant herein has not been able to establish

that a larger public interest would be served by disclosure of this

information. This logic would hold good as far as the ITRs of Shri

Lute are concerned. I would like to further observe that the

information which has been denied to the appellant essentially falls

in two parts – (i) relating to the personal matters pertaining to his

services career; and (ii) Shri Lute’s assets & liabilities, movable

and immovable properties and other financial aspects. I have no

hesitation in holding that this information also qualifies to be the

‘personal information’ as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the

RTI Act and the appellant has not been able to convince the Commission

that disclosure thereof is in larger public interest.”

 

 

 

 

5. The CIC, after holding so directed the second respondent to disclose

the information at paragraphs 1, 2, 3 (only posting details), 5, 10, 11,

12,13 (only copies of the posting orders) to the appellant within a period

of four weeks from the date of the order. Further, it was held that the

information sought for with regard to the other queries did not qualify for

disclosure.

 

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a writ petition

No.4221 of 2009 which came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge and

the court dismissed the same vide order dated 16.2.2010. The matter was

taken up by way of Letters Patent Appeal No.358 of 2011 before the Division

Bench and the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2011. Against the

said order this special leave petition has been filed.

 

7. Shri A.P. Wachasunder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitted that the documents sought for vide Sl. Nos.1, 2 and 3 were

pertaining to appointment and promotion and Sl. No.4 and 12 to 15 were

related to disciplinary action and documents at Sl. Nos.6 to 9 pertained to

assets and liabilities and gifts received by the third respondent and the

disclosure of those details, according to the learned counsel, would not

cause unwarranted invasion of privacy.

 

8. Learned counsel also submitted that the privacy appended to Section

8(1)(j) of the RTI Act widens the scope of documents warranting disclosure

and if those provisions are properly interpreted, it could not be said that

documents pertaining to employment of a person holding the post of

enforcement officer could be treated as documents having no relationship to

any public activity or interest.

 

9. Learned counsel also pointed out that in view of Section 6(2) of the

RTI Act, the applicant making request for information is not obliged to

give any reason for the requisition and the CIC was not justified in

dismissing his appeal.

 

10. This Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and another v.

Aditya Bandopadhyay and others (2011) 8 SCC 497 while dealing with the

right of examinees to inspect evaluated answer books in connection with the

examination conducted by the CBSE Board had an occasion to consider in

detail the aims and object of the RTI Act as well as the reasons for the

introduction of the exemption clause in the RTI Act, hence, it is

unnecessary, for the purpose of this case to further examine the meaning

and contents of Section 8 as a whole.

 

11. We are, however, in this case primarily concerned with the scope and

interpretation to clauses (e), (g) and (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act

which are extracted herein below:

“8. Exemption from disclosure of information.- (1) Notwithstanding

anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give

any citizen,-

 

 

(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship,

unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public

interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

 

 

(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or

physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or

assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security

purposes;

 

 

(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure

of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or

which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the

individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State

Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may

be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the

disclosure of such information.”

 

 

 

 

12. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause

notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his

employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also

the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other

financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of

gifts stated to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members

and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information

mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third

respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the

above-mentioned information sought for qualifies to be “personal

information” as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.

 

13. We are 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 of 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.

 

14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are

“personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause

(j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public

interest and 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.

 

15. 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.

 

16. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded

in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public

interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this

special leave petition. Hence, the same is dismissed.

 

 

……………….……………………..J.

(K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN)

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………….…..J.

(DIPAK MISRA)

New Delhi

October 3, 2012

SCI SLP(Civil) 27734 of 2012.pdf

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
digal

As reported by The Economic Times, 4 Oct, 2012, 09.14PM IST, PTI IT returns, performance report out of RTI ambit: Supreme Court

 

it-returns-performance-report-out-of-rti-ambit-supreme-court.jpg

 

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are "personal information" which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest is involved.

 

The apex court added that under the transparency law, information pertaining to the performance of an employee or officer cannot be made public as it is a matter between the employee and the employer which falls under the expression of "personal information" and cannot be claimed as a right by others.

 

"The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless a larger public interest is involved and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information," a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra said.

 

"The performance of an employee or officer in an organisation 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," it further said.

 

The court said "the disclosure of such information 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 of 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," it said. ?The apex court gave the verdict while dismissing a plea against denial of information regarding a government servant's service matters and also the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties.

 

The information seeker had approached the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour) on August 27, 2008 seeking various details relating to a person employed as an Enforcement Officer in the Sub-Regional Office, Akola.

 

He had also sought the details of the gifts accepted by the official, his family members and friends and relatives on his son's marriage.

 

Holding that the information sought for is contained in the income tax returns of the official, the apex court said the Central Information Commission and the Bombay High Court had dealt with them and there was no question of disagreement with the two fora.

 

"We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition," the bench said.

 

"We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner ie, the 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 bench said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
digal

As reported by Deccan Herald,

[h=1]Info on IT returns can’t be disclosed under RTI: Apex court[/h] NEW DELHI, Oct 7, 2012, DHNS:

The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person’s income tax (IT) returns and job performance cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act unless larger public interest is involved.

 

Otherwise, making public those information would amount to unwarranted invasion into privacy, the court added.

 

A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra passed the judgement while declining to entertain a special leave petition filed by Girish Ramachandra Deshpande.Deshpande had sought information on IT returns and service details of an enforcement officer at Akola in Maharashtra which was denied by the Central Information Commission. Deshpande’s challenge to the CIC’s order was earlier dismissed by the Bombay High Court.

 

In his plea, he had contended that if the provisions of the law were properly interpreted, it could not be said that the information pertaining to employment of a person holding the post of enforcement officer has no relationship to any public activity or interest. However, the apex court did not agree with his contention.

 

“The performance of an employee/officer in an organisation 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 would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) or the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) of 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 bench said.

 

The apex court further said: “The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless it involves a larger public interest and the CPIO or the SPIO or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies its disclosure.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lissing perme

Public servant performing public duty always affect the public.Therefore what is the need to show any other public interest for seeking information related performance of public servant the public duty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shibudibrugarh

With skeletons tumbling out of the cupboard of the rich and powerful with alarming regularity, whose interest, according to Members of this portal - Experts and Non-Experts alike - is going to be hit the hardest following this verdict?? Public at large? Whistle blowers?? What will happen to the landmark judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dev Dutt -vs- Union of India?? Have not yet read the 4th Oct Judgment in full - though !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
digal

I empathize your concerns. It will be very difficult for a common man to prove the requirement of "larger public interest"

 

But, never compare with the case of civil appeal # 7631 OF 2002(Dev Dutt -vs- Union of India).

 

The present case(Civil No. 27734 of 2012) is mainly about disclosure of other employee's information (Punishments/ I T Returns/ Show cause etc ) :

 

We are 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

Where as, the case you mentioned(Dev Dutt -vs- Union of India) is about disclosing employee's own ACR to him/herself only. :

 

39. In the present case, we are developing the principles of natural justice by holding that fairness and

transparency in public administration requires that all entries (whether poor, fair, average, good or very good)

in the Annual Confidential Report of a public servant, whether in civil, judicial, police or any other State

service (except the military), must be communicated to him within a reasonable period so that he can make a

representation for its upgradation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
taurus

For a better appreciation of the case I tried to see the original CIC decision dated 18/06/2009 against which this appeal in the Supreme Court was preferred. But, to my disappointment, the search facility to locate this decision in the CIC website is not working properly (the link about the decisions of the CIC). Therefore, I am writing my views based on a reading of the Supreme Court Judgment dated 3/10/12.

It appears that the narrow point taken up for consideration by the SC is whether the information that were denied viz. 1. details of salary alongwith the statutory and other deductions; 2. copies of all memos, penalties, show-cause notices, inquiry report etc., 3. copies of returns of assets and liabilities; and 4. copy of reports of itemwise and valuewise details of gifts received., were personal information or not?

The court has concluded that these are personal information only. In addition the court has also observed that all these information asked for above except those under Slno. 2 above, are contained in the Income Tax Return.

 

The court has further held that the disclosure of the above information (which are personal information) can be made only when the PIO is satisfied that larger Public Interest justifies their disclosure. This is exactly what the Act also says. Therefore there is nothing new in this judgment.

 

But why it appears to be alarming is because, Sec 4 (1) (b) asks for suo moto disclosure of the salary paid to the employees. The court decision does not go against this legal provision because what has been asked in this RTI application is not simply the salary details but the details of all (statutory or otherwise) deductions also. That is where it differs from the provision of the Act.

 

There is a line in the judgment which says - "The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarilya 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." This is interpreted out of context by the media to mean the ACR/APAR. The context in which this line appears in the judgment is with reference to the issue of memos, charge-sheets, show-cause notices etc. But going by the logic of the thinking of the Court, it can, ofcourse, be stretched to the ACR/APAR also, though they are not directly and specifically stated in the judgment.

 

The main point is that the petitioner has not stated how larger public interest justifies disclosure of the above info. As such the Order of the SC only reiterates what the Act says. Nothing new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jps50

Larger interest can only be proved even prima facie only if the applicant has some information.

 

Judgement is being interpreted as to take away all information between employer and employee out of RTI bound.

 

If enquiry report on complaint made by a citizen or relating to fraud reported in media is not provided, how he or public will know whether proper enquiry was conducted. Matters can be husked up without public scrutiny.

 

This judgement will be used by govt and employers to dissuade public from getting information relating to employees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jetley
Public servant performing public duty always affect the public.Therefore what is the need to show any other public interest for seeking information related performance of public servant the public duty.

 

I think this decision contradicts earlier ones that ruled as mentioned by you. So the matter appears fit for a review by a bench

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jps50

I attach decision dated 19-10-12 of CIC rejecting supply of information relating to service record, property details and even educational qualification quoting SC judgement dated 03-10-12. Thus information on govt employees connected to his misdoings during employment [may be corruption, frauds] will also be out of public access, since larger public interest cannot be proved without some records on hand.

SERVICE RECORD- NO.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
taurus

This order is not a reasoned one. It simply quotes one portion of the SC judgment and says -"In the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order and in the absence of any larger public interest being shown, the Commission, upholds the decision of the AA." It does not discuss the arguments put forth by the appellant. Hence we are not sure whether he totally failed to show any public interest or his arguments about public interest were not convincing enough. The order also shows that the PIO denied the information not because it was personal information but because it belonged to third party and thus "exempted" under the Act. The Act does not simply exempt third party information from disclosure per se. It only prescribes a procedure to be followed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jj99
what has been asked in this RTI application is not simply the salary details but the details of all (statutory or otherwise) deductions also. That is where it differs from the provision of the Act.

.

 

But statutory deductions are already disclosed in the form of FORM 16 see attached order

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
digal
But statutory deductions are already disclosed in the form of FORM 16 see attached order

2012-6-19-cmh-kuxingtu-33--ss.jpg

 

Gone are the golden oldy days, when RTI flourished without much interference.

 

At present, the finest of all the ACTs since independence, is being suffocated by some of the responsible authorities including remarks of judiciary, law makers & bureaucracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shibudibrugarh

Could not agree more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
taurus
But statutory deductions are already disclosed in the form of FORM 16 see attached order

Yes. Statutory deductions can be disclosed. The invasion of privacy occurs only when we disclose non-statutory deductions. It is purely personal information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
digal
Hi Jetly, plz find the link of the judgment.

 

- Supreme Court Cases | RTI Foundation of India

 

8th Case

 

Before finding the judgement at other places, Pl.go through this thread to find the attachment at post #5 by Nandi-ji. This forum is refurbished enough to supply all important decisions.

 

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/104081-rti-court-decision-returns-performance-report-out-rti-ambit-sc.html#post254242

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • karira
      By karira
      As reported by Abhinav Garg in timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 13 February 2011:
      IIT can't deny JEE record: High Court - The Times of India
       
      IIT can't deny JEE record: High Court
       
      NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court in an important ruling recently has held that a candidate appearing for the prestigious JEE or GATE conducted by the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) has the right to access information or records relating to the exam under the RTI Act.
       
      Dismissing a petition filed by IIT Delhi against an order of the Central Information Commission, Justice S Muralidhar recently asked the institute to provide information to applicants Navin Talwar and Sushil Kohli who had sought a copy of the 'Optical Response Sheets' or the answer sheets in their RTI plea to IIT-D.
       
      The IIT had claimed immunity from disclosure on the ground that its brochure inviting applicants to appear for the JEE or GATE makes it clear it won't entertain any queries related to ORS, and by filing the RTI the applicants had violated this precondition.
       
      The IIT claimed any qurstion on marks obtained, if entertained, will only lead to demands for regrading and retotalling, even though the institute doesn't entertain any correspondence on it.
       
      But High Court brushed aside the objections, reminding IIT-D of the supremacy of the transparency Act over any other rule.
       
      "The right of a candidate, sitting for JEE or GATE, to obtain information under the RTI Act is a statutory one. It can't be said to have been waived by such candidate only because of a clause in the information brochure for JEE or GATE. In other words, a candidate doesn't lose his or her right under the RTI Act only because he or she has agreed to sit for JEE or GATE," the court observed.
       
      Talwar, a candidate who had taken the JEE last year and Kohli, whose daughter appeared for GATE, filed an RTI plea seeking copies of the ORSs and subject-wise marks of each of the candidates.
       
      On being rebuffed by the public information officer of IIT-Delhi, the duo appealed before the Central Information Commission, which ruled in their favour.
    • karira
      By karira
      As reported by Jeeva in timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 18 February 2011:
      Denial of RTI info amounts to deficiency in service: Forum - The Times of India
       
      Denial of RTI info amounts to deficiency in service: Forum
       
      CHENNAI: Applicants can now approach consumer courts (apart from the state or central information commission) for compensation in case they are denied information by a public authority to applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
       
      Delivering a landmark order to this effect recently on a complaint filed by R Rajakumar of Pudukottai, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Thoothukudi asked a constituent college of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University to pay Rs 20,000 compensation to the complainant for failing to reply to his RTI application.
       
      In October 2009, Rajakumar filed a petition with the university under the RTI Act seeking information pertaining to the copy of applications of women BSc computer science students received by St Mary's College, a constitutent of the university, in 2006-07. He affixed a court fee stamp of Rs 10 towards the application fee but didn't get a reply within the stipulated 30 days.
       
      He then moved the district consumer forum saying he had paid the prescribed fee and hence he should be treated as a consumer. And the failure to reply to his queries would amount to deficiency in service, he argued and prayed for compensation under the Consumer Protection Act.
       
      The university said the complainant could not be considered a consumer as the fee paid by him was fixed by the government for information under the RTI Act. The consumer forum did not have the jurisdiction to hear the complaint, it said adding that the complainant could only prefer an appeal with the appellate authority under the RTI Act.
       
      The university also said it had forwarded Rajakumar's RTI application to St Mary's college but that the college said the information had already been furnished to the complainant in May 2009 and hence it wasn't necessary to give it again.'
       
      Forum president M Ramachandran and members GP Bhadra Thulasi and S Leonard Vasanth said they had the jurisdiction to hear the complaint since it was a case of deficiency in service.
       
      The National Consumer Disputes Redessal Commission had already made a ruling to this effect in SP Thirumala Rao Vs Municipal Commissioner, Mysore City Municipal Corporation case, they added.
       
      Holding the college liable for deficiency in service, the forum said it had to provide the information even if the same had already been provided as the complainant had filed a fresh RTI application with the prescribed fee.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy