welcome to Personal Information | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	HIGH COURT CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
16	W.P. (C) 7923/2013 (369.21 KB)	21 Nov, 2014	THDC India Limited vs T. Chanda Biswas THDC India Limited vs T. Chanda Biswas Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the CIC allowing the respondent's appeal and directing the petitioner to provide information relating to the proceedings of the DPC for the years 2006, 2007 and 2009. Whether the petitioner can be compelled to disclose the minutes of the DPC proceedings held for promotion to the post of AGM? The petitioners submitted that the DPC proceedings contain confidential information about other officers and this being third party information cannot be disclosed to the respondent. It is contended that such information is exempt from disclosure under sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that DPC minutes cannot be disclosed except in public interest and that too after following the procedure specified under sections 11(1) and 19 (4) of the Act. The reasoning of the CIC that the respondent being an officer of the petitioner cannot be considered as a third party, is not sustainable. The information relating to ACRs and grading of an employee are personal to him and in this respect other employees are, definitely, not entitled to share that information. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in paras11 & 13 of the Judgement
17	W.P. (C) 903/2013 (186.47 KB)	08 Jul, 2014	THDC India Limited vs R.K. Raturi THDC India Limited vs R.K. Raturi Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the CIC whereby the petitioner has been directed to provide photocopies of the DPC proceedings including the comparative grading statement pertaining to the recommended candidates as well as ACRs of the appellant himself for the period mentioned by him in his RTI application. The petitioner contended that the information directed to be released pertaining to other employees of the petitioner is being held by the petitioner in fiduciary capacity and would amount to disclosure of personal information- the petitioner further contended that information sought for pertains to third party and provisions of sections 11(1) and 19(4) of the RTI Act would be applicable. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that this Court is of the opinion that the finding of public interest warranting disclosure of the said information under sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and the procedure contemplated under sections 11(1) and 19(4) of the RTI Act are mandatory in nature and cannot be waived. In the present case, CIC has directed the petitioner to provide DPC minutes to the respondent without considering the defence of the petitioner under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act and without following the procedure specified under sections 11(1) and 19(4) of the RTI Act. No findings has been given by CIC as to whether public interest warranted such a disclosure. The matter is remanded back to CIC for consideration of petitioner’s defences under sections 8(1)(e) and section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and if the CIC is of the view that larger public interest is involved, it shall thereafter follow the third party procedure as prescribed under sections 11(1) and 19(4) of the RTI Act. The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in paras 4 & 10 of the Judgement
18	W.P. (C) 3406/2012 & CM Appl. 7218/2012 and W.P. (C) 8915/2011 & CM Appls. 20128/2011, 20162/2012 and W.P. (C) 410/2012 & CM Appl. 871/2012 (277.17 KB)	19 Feb, 2014	UOI Vs. R Jayachandran & Ors UOI Vs. R Jayachandran & Ors Section 8(1)(j) – Personal information – information sought to provide copies of passports of third parties along with their birth certificates, educational qualifications and identity proofs [ This Court is also of the view that if passport number of a third party is furnished to an applicant, it can be misused. Writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders passed by CIC are set aside. The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in paras 3, 6, 7, 10 & 13 of the Judgement
19	W.A. Nos. 6195-99/2013 (S-RES) (106.97 KB)	08 Jan, 2014	D Shivu & others Vs Karnataka High Court & Others D Shivu & others Vs Karnataka High Court & Others The appellants who were the petitioners were unsuccessful in the written examination conducted for the purpose of recruitment of Civil Judges. They had sought a declaration that the holding of viva-voice for the selection without permitting the candidates to peruse their answer scripts was unjust and arbitrary. They demanded that the answer scripts be furnished to them and the answer papers in the subjects in which they had failed be revaluated. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. Since there was no allegation of any malafides, illegality or irregularity in the mater of valuation of the answer scripts-the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka upheld the decision of the learned single judge. The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the Judgement
20	CWP No. 27805 of 2013 (180.00 KB)	18 Dec, 2013	FIEM Industries Limited V.S. State Information Commission Haryana & Ors FIEM Industries Limited V.S. State Information Commission Haryana & Ors Section 8(1)(j) -Whether information pertaining to tax evasion disc losable-? The respondent No. 5 sought certain information from the CPIO regarding tax evasion matter the information was denied by CPIO under section 8(1)(j) of Act- the CIC held the details of a raid conducted on the petitioner by the VAT authorities, was in the larger public interest and, therefore, the provisions of section 8(1)(j) would not come to the aid of petitioner. The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that the respondent No. 5 has sought information regarding alleged tax evasion by various companies including the petitioner company. The present matter is not a case where the tax returns are being sought but a case where details of tax evasions (if any) are being sought. Consequently the petition is dismissed. The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the paras 12-14 of the Judgement
21	W.P. (C) No. 5827 of 2013 & CM. No. 12828 of 2013 (stay) (177.44 KB)	21 Nov, 2013	Union of India V.S. Dr. H.C. Sharatchandra Union of India V.S. Dr. H.C. Sharatchandra Section 8(1)(j)- Personal Information – the respondent filed an RTI application and sought certain information from the CPIO such as copies of the supporting documents relief/considered by the Chairman, Appointment Committee of Cabinet, for approving/not approving candidates, selected by the duly constituted selection committed for selection of Expert Member to National Green Tribunal in interview held on 5th February, 2011- the CIC held that the documents which form part of the Cabinet papers should be disclosed after the decision is taken and implemented and the matter is over. The CPIO was accordingly directed to send the copies of those papers- The directions given by the Commission to provide copies of the supporting documents based on which PMO had decided on the proposal submitted are not acceptable to the petitioner and the order passed by the Commission is challenged before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed since the petitioner is required to disclose the material on the basis of which decision was taken by the Cabinet Committee of Appointments, since, admittedly, the aforesaid decision has already been implemented. The writ petition accordingly dismissed. The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the para 5 of the Judgement
22	W.P. (C) 5812/2010 (30.22 KB)	08 Nov, 2013	Upsc Vs. Pinki Ganeriwal Upsc Vs. Pinki Ganeriwal Section 8(1)(I) – Personal Information- Section 8(2) – Larger Public Interest –Details Of Date Of Birth, Institution & Year Of Passing Graduation, Field Experience Of Company And Marks Obtained In Interview And Caste Of the Selected Eleven Candidates for appointment as Dy. Director Of Mines Safety (Mining) In Director General Of Mines Safety, Dhanbad Under Ministry Of Labour And Employment, New Delhi. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that the information such as date of birth, institution and year of passing graduation, field experience and caste is personal information of the selected candidates. The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the para 18 of the Judgement
23	W.P. (C) 677/2013 (197.82 KB)	31 Oct, 2013	UNION OF INDIA Vs. ANITA SINGH UNION OF INDIA Vs. ANITA SINGH Section 8(1)(j) – Personal information- The applicant sought the photocopy of the passport with complete details of a person alongwith the copy of his certificates. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that the passport of that person would have his personal information such as the address, date of birth and the name of his parents. That would constitute personal information within the meaning of section 8(1)(j) of the Act, which cannot be disclosed to the respondents. However, the passport number and the date of issue and expiry of the passport can be provided to him. The birth certificate as well as the documents of his education and the documents submitted by him as proof of his residential address are personal information which cannot be disclosed to the respondent particularly when no special circumstances warranting such disclosure were indicated in the application nor did the Commission came to the conclusion that disclosure of the aforesaid personal information was warranted in the larger public interest. The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the para 2 & 4 of the Judgement Observation of the High Court: The passport of Mr Ajeet Singh would have his personal information such as the address, date of birth, and the name of his parents. The information such as date of birth and residential address of the passport holder would constitute personal information within the meaning of section 8(1)(j) of the Act, which cannot be disclosed to the respondents. However the passport number and the date of issue and expiry of the passport can be provided to him, the said information would be exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The birth certificate of Mr Ajeet Singh as well as the documents of his education and the documents submitted by him as pproof of his residential address are personal information which cannot be disclosed to the respondent, particularly when no special circumstances warranting such disclosure were indicated in the application nor did the Commission came to the conclusion that disclosure of the aforesaid personal information was warranted in the larger public interest.
24	W.P. (C) 4190/2013 (156.20 KB)	29 Oct, 2013	Central Bank of India VS. Union of India & Ors Central Bank of India VS. Union of India & Ors Section 8(1)(j) The applicant sought certain information from the CPIO of the petitioner- Central Bank of India: 1. On what date this loan was disbursed? 2. On which property/stock/security the said loan/money was given to ‘Think Communication at G-23, Triveni Complex. 3. Whether Sonia Mendiratta had information you that this is a disputed/suit property and there is a stay granted by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi The information was denied by the PIO of the ground that the said information was exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act- The Commission directed the petitioner to disclose the information sought by the Respondent No. 2. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that since according to Respondent No. 2 he is one of the co-owners of the said property, In case any information with respect to mortgage of the said property with the bank is provided, that would not be a personal information related only to Respondent No. 3, she being only one of the co-owners and would equally a personal information of the other co-owners, including respondent No. 2. Consequently providing such an information, to a co-owner of the property will not be the exemption under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, therefore, will not be available, when the information of this nature is sought by a co-owner of the property derogation of the provisions contained in section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the para 5 of the Judgement
25	W.P. (C). No. 1673 of 2011 (154.76 KB)	29 Oct, 2013	UPSC V.S. Sushil Kumar UPSC V.S. Sushil Kumar Section 8(1)(j) The respondent filed RTI application before the CPIO, U\|PSC and along with other information also sought the list of finally shortlisted candidates for interview with criteria on the basis of which they were shortlisted for interview including their qualification and work experience or any other criteria- The CPIO denied the part of information whereas first appellate authority directed to the CPIO to supply the list of final shortlisted candidates to the respondents. He , however, declined to direct disclosure of the information relating to educational qualification and experience of the shortlisted candidates- The CIC directed the CPIO to provide the Appellant the list of the candidates invited for the above interview along with the educational qualification and work experience of each of those candidates, provided these form part of the bench mark fixed for inviting candidates for interview. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that no finding has been recorded by the Commission that is was in the larger public interest to disclose the information with respect to the qualification and experience of other shortlisted candidates. In the absence of recording such a finding the Commission could not have directed disclosure of the aforesaid information to the respondent. The impugned order passed by the CIC is set Aside. The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the para 3 of the Judgement
26	W.P. (C) 2794/2012 (296.81 KB)	25 Oct, 2013	Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Vs. Yash Pal Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Vs. Yash Pal The applicant sought certified copy of the call details of certain numbers. Call details to include incoming as well as outgoing details, Registration details etc. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that with whom a subscriber communicates and what messages he sends or receives are the personal affairs of a subscriber, disclosure of which is bound to impinge on his privacy. The information sought by the respondent, therefore, was personal information of a third party, exempt form disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the paras 4-6 of the Judgement
27	W.P. (C) 4079/2013 (307.65 KB)	10 Oct, 2013	Union Public Service Commission Vs. G.S Sandhu & Ors. Union Public Service Commission Vs. G.S Sandhu & Ors. Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information- Whether the copies of office notings recorded should be provided - the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that (i) the copies of office notings recorded in the file of UPSC as well as the copies of the correspondence exchanged between UPSC and the department by which its advice was sought, to the extent shall be provided to the respondent after removing from the notings and correspondence, (a) the date of the noting and the letter, as the case may be; (b) the name and designation of the person recording the noting and writing the letter and; (c) any other indication in the noting and/or correspondence which may reveal or tend to reveal the identity of author of the noting/letter, as the case may be; (ii) if the notings and/or correspondence referred in (i) above contains personal information relating to a third party, such information will be excluded while providing the information sought by the respondent. The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the paras 5, 6, 8, 12 & 13 of the Judgement
28	W.P. (C) 2232/2012 Along With W.P. (C) 8932/2011& CM No. 20166/2011 W.P. (C) 3421/2012 & CM No. 7235/2012 W.P. (C) 1263/2012 & CM No. 2745/2012 W.P. (C) 1677/2012 & CM No. 6186/2012 W.P. (C)1794/2012 & CM No. 3929/2012 W.P. (C)2231/2012 & CM No. 6185/2012 (357.58 KB)	17 Sep, 2013	Union of India & Ors V.S. Rajesh Bhatia & Ors. Union of India & Ors V.S. Rajesh Bhatia & Ors. Section 8(1)(j) Weather the information relating to passport holder is exempt from disclosure under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that the respondent can have no valid objection to provide the information as to whether the visa was issued in the name of one Ms. Neeru Duggal or not. It can have no valid objection to give the details of the passport including the dated of its first issue and subsequent renewals, if any. There can be no objection to disclose the nature of the documents submitted with the application, without disclosing the contents of those documents, since no personal information is disclosed in disclosing the nature of the documents alone. Similarly, there can be be objection to give the name of the police station from which the police verification was got done. The information as regards the foreign visits undertaken by the passport holder is not supposed to be available with the Regional Passport Office and, therefore cannot be provided by it. The information as to date of issue of passport number and date of its expire can certainly be disclosed since no personal information is contained in such details. However, copy of the application form cannot be provided since it would have contained personal information of the passport holder. The copies of the application for grant of passport would contain personal details of the passport holder. The validity of the passports as to whether new passports have been issued or not and if so what are the numbers of new passports cannot be refused to the respondent since these details would contain no personal information in respect of passport holder. However the address of the passport holder cannot be disclosed to him. The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the paras 5, 8, 10-16 of the Judgement
29	W.P. (C). 3444/2012 (280.17 KB)	23 Aug, 2013	Union of India V.S. Hardev Singh Union of India V.S. Hardev Singh Section 8(1) (j) The respondent sought certain information from PIO, Regional Passport Office, New Delhi with respect to passport issued to one Sh. Beant Singh – the CPIO refused to provide copies of documents in proof of address and identity to the respondent on the ground that it was a third party information exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (j) of the Act- the Commission information directed the PIO to provide complete information as per the available record to the respondent –whether the respondent Passport Office, as proof of his address and identity (ii) the noting portion whereby issue of passport was recommended to Sh. Beant Singh. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that it can hardly be disputed that the information provided by Sh. Beant Singh to the Regional Passport Office, as proof of his address and identity, would be a ‘personal information’ though its disclosure may not necessarily impinge on his privacy. Such information has no relationship to any public activity of Sh. Beant Singh and in fact this is not the case of the respondent that Sh. Beant Singh, as proof of his address and identity, is clearly exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and to this extent the order passed by the CIC cannot be sustained. As regards, noting on the file recommending issue of passport to Sh. Beant Singh in case does not contain any information which can be said to be personal information within the meaning of section 8(1) (j) of the Act, there can be no objection to its disclosure. The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the paras 3-7 of the Judgement
30	Writ Petition No. 1825 of 2013 (175.30 KB)	22 Aug, 2013	Subhash Bajiroa Khemnar V.S. Dilip Nayku Throat & Ors. Subhash Bajiroa Khemnar V.S. Dilip Nayku Throat & Ors. Section 8(1)(j) The respondent No. 1 had filed an application seeking a copy of the service book of the petitioner and also the income tax returns and information about the petitioners assets – The CPIO denied the information in view of the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of the Act- The CPIO denied the information in view of the previous of sections 8(1)(j) of the Act- the FAA dismissed the First Appeal – The respondent No. 1 then filed an appeal before the State Information Commissioner and the Commission allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and directed the concerned departments to supply the necessary information to the respondent No. 1 on payment of necessary fees and /or charges the Petitioner contained that the State Information Commissioner was not justified in directing the Information Officer to supply the personal information in regard to the petitioner’s assets and income tax returns unless the Chief Information Commissioner was satisfied that the disclosure of such information was necessary in the larger public interest The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held that the supply personal info4rmation in respect of the service record, income tax returns and assets of the petitioner unless the Commissioner was satisfied that the disclosure of the information was justified in larger public interest. Under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, there is no obligation on the Information Officer to give personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship with any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion on the privacy of the individuals unless the authority is satisfied that the disclosure of such information is justified in larger public interest. The second appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 before the State Information Commissioner stand dismissed. The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the paras 3-7 of the Judgement

16

W.P. (C) 7923/2013
(369.21 KB) pdf icon

21 Nov, 2014

THDC India Limited vs T. Chanda Biswas

THDC India Limited vs T. Chanda Biswas
Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the CIC allowing the respondent's appeal and directing the petitioner to provide information relating to the proceedings of the DPC for the years 2006, 2007 and 2009. Whether the petitioner can be compelled to disclose the minutes of the DPC proceedings held for promotion to the post of AGM? The petitioners submitted that the DPC proceedings contain confidential information about other officers and this being third party information cannot be disclosed to the respondent. It is contended that such information is exempt from disclosure under sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the Act.

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that DPC minutes cannot be disclosed except in public interest and that too after following the procedure specified under sections 11(1) and 19 (4) of the Act. The reasoning of the CIC that the respondent being an officer of the petitioner cannot be considered as a third party, is not sustainable. The information relating to ACRs and grading of an employee are personal to him and in this respect other employees are, definitely, not entitled to share that information. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in paras11 & 13 of the Judgement

17

W.P. (C) 903/2013
(186.47 KB) pdf icon

08 Jul, 2014

THDC India Limited vs R.K. Raturi

THDC India Limited vs R.K. Raturi
Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information.
The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the CIC whereby the petitioner has been directed to provide photocopies of the DPC proceedings including the comparative grading statement pertaining to the recommended candidates as well as ACRs of the appellant himself for the period mentioned by him in his RTI application. The petitioner contended that the information directed to be released pertaining to other employees of the petitioner is being held by the petitioner in fiduciary capacity and would amount to disclosure of personal information- the petitioner further contended that information sought for pertains to third party and provisions of sections 11(1) and 19(4) of the RTI Act would be applicable.

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that this Court is of the opinion that the finding of public interest warranting disclosure of the said information under sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and the procedure contemplated under sections 11(1) and 19(4) of the RTI Act are mandatory in nature and cannot be waived. In the present case, CIC has directed the petitioner to provide DPC minutes to the respondent without considering the defence of the petitioner under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act and without following the procedure specified under sections 11(1) and 19(4) of the RTI Act. No findings has been given by CIC as to whether public interest warranted such a disclosure. The matter is remanded back to CIC for consideration of petitioner’s defences under sections 8(1)(e) and section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and if the CIC is of the view that larger public interest is involved, it shall thereafter follow the third party procedure as prescribed under sections 11(1) and 19(4) of the RTI Act.
The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in paras 4 & 10 of the Judgement

18

W.P. (C) 3406/2012 & CM Appl. 7218/2012 and W.P. (C) 8915/2011 & CM Appls. 20128/2011, 20162/2012 and W.P. (C) 410/2012 & CM Appl. 871/2012
(277.17 KB) pdf icon

19 Feb, 2014

UOI Vs. R Jayachandran & Ors

UOI Vs. R Jayachandran & Ors
Section 8(1)(j) – Personal information – information sought to provide copies of passports of third parties along with their birth certificates, educational qualifications and identity proofs [ This Court is also of the view that if passport number of a third party is furnished to an applicant, it can be misused. Writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders passed by CIC are set aside.
The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in paras 3, 6, 7, 10 & 13 of the Judgement

19

W.A. Nos. 6195-99/2013 (S-RES)
(106.97 KB) pdf icon

08 Jan, 2014

D Shivu & others Vs Karnataka High Court & Others

D Shivu & others Vs Karnataka High Court & Others
The appellants who were the petitioners were unsuccessful in the written examination conducted for the purpose of recruitment of Civil Judges. They had sought a declaration that the holding of viva-voice for the selection without permitting the candidates to peruse their answer scripts was unjust and arbitrary. They demanded that the answer scripts be furnished to them and the answer papers in the subjects in which they had failed be revaluated. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. Since there was no allegation of any malafides, illegality or irregularity in the mater of valuation of the answer scripts-the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka upheld the decision of the learned single judge.
The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the Judgement

20

CWP No. 27805 of 2013
(180.00 KB) pdf icon

18 Dec, 2013

FIEM Industries Limited V.S. State Information Commission Haryana & Ors

FIEM Industries Limited V.S. State Information Commission Haryana & Ors
Section 8(1)(j) -Whether information pertaining to tax evasion disc losable-?
The respondent No. 5 sought certain information from the CPIO regarding tax evasion matter the information was denied by CPIO under section 8(1)(j) of Act- the CIC held the details of a raid conducted on the petitioner by the VAT authorities, was in the larger public interest and, therefore, the provisions of section 8(1)(j) would not come to the aid of petitioner.

The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that the respondent No. 5 has sought information regarding alleged tax evasion by various companies including the petitioner company. The present matter is not a case where the tax returns are being sought but a case where details of tax evasions (if any) are being sought. Consequently the petition is dismissed.
The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the paras 12-14 of the Judgement

21

W.P. (C) No. 5827 of 2013 & CM. No. 12828 of 2013 (stay)
(177.44 KB) pdf icon

21 Nov, 2013

Union of India V.S. Dr. H.C. Sharatchandra

Union of India V.S. Dr. H.C. Sharatchandra
Section 8(1)(j)- Personal Information – the respondent filed an RTI application and sought certain information from the CPIO such as copies of the supporting documents relief/considered by the Chairman, Appointment Committee of Cabinet, for approving/not approving candidates, selected by the duly constituted selection committed for selection of Expert Member to National Green Tribunal in interview held on 5th February, 2011- the CIC held that the documents which form part of the Cabinet papers should be disclosed after the decision is taken and implemented and the matter is over. The CPIO was accordingly directed to send the copies of those papers-
The directions given by the Commission to provide copies of the supporting documents based on which PMO had decided on the proposal submitted are not acceptable to the petitioner and the order passed by the Commission is challenged before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed since the petitioner is required to disclose the material on the basis of which decision was taken by the Cabinet Committee of Appointments, since, admittedly, the aforesaid decision has already been implemented. The writ petition accordingly dismissed.
The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the para 5 of the Judgement

22

W.P. (C) 5812/2010
(30.22 KB) pdf icon

08 Nov, 2013

Upsc Vs. Pinki Ganeriwal

Upsc Vs. Pinki Ganeriwal
Section 8(1)(I) – Personal Information- Section 8(2) – Larger Public Interest –Details Of Date Of Birth, Institution & Year Of Passing Graduation, Field Experience Of Company And Marks Obtained In Interview And Caste Of the Selected Eleven Candidates for appointment as Dy. Director Of Mines Safety (Mining) In Director General Of Mines Safety, Dhanbad Under Ministry Of Labour And Employment, New Delhi.
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that the information such as date of birth, institution and year of passing graduation, field experience and caste is personal information of the selected candidates.
The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the para 18 of the Judgement

23

W.P. (C) 677/2013
(197.82 KB) pdf icon

31 Oct, 2013

UNION OF INDIA Vs. ANITA SINGH

UNION OF INDIA Vs. ANITA SINGH
Section 8(1)(j) – Personal information- The applicant sought the photocopy of the passport with complete details
of a person alongwith the copy of his certificates.
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that the passport of that person would have his personal information such as the address, date of birth and the name of his parents. That would constitute personal information within the meaning of section 8(1)(j) of the Act, which cannot be disclosed to the respondents. However, the passport number and the date of issue and expiry of the passport can be provided to him. The birth certificate as well as the documents of his education and the documents submitted by him as proof of his residential address are personal information which cannot be disclosed to the respondent particularly when no special circumstances warranting such disclosure were indicated in the application nor did the Commission came to the conclusion that disclosure of the aforesaid personal information was warranted in the larger public interest.
The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the para 2 & 4 of the Judgement

Observation of the High Court:
The passport of Mr Ajeet Singh would have his personal information such as the address, date of birth, and the name of his parents. The information such as date of birth and residential address of the passport holder would constitute personal information within the meaning of section 8(1)(j) of the Act, which cannot be disclosed to the respondents.
However the passport number and the date of issue and expiry of the passport can be provided to him, the said information would be exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the Act.
The birth certificate of Mr Ajeet Singh as well as the documents of his education and the documents submitted by him as pproof of his residential address are personal information which cannot be disclosed to the respondent, particularly when no special circumstances warranting such disclosure were indicated in the application nor did the Commission came to the conclusion that disclosure of the aforesaid personal information was warranted in the larger public interest.

24

W.P. (C) 4190/2013
(156.20 KB) pdf icon

29 Oct, 2013

Central Bank of India VS. Union of India & Ors

Central Bank of India VS. Union of India & Ors
Section 8(1)(j)
The applicant sought certain information from the CPIO of the petitioner- Central Bank of India:
1. On what date this loan was disbursed?
2. On which property/stock/security the said loan/money was given to ‘Think Communication at G-23, Triveni Complex.
3. Whether Sonia Mendiratta had information you that this is a disputed/suit property and there is a stay granted by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
The information was denied by the PIO of the ground that the said information was exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act- The Commission directed the petitioner to disclose the information sought by the Respondent No. 2.

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that since according to Respondent No. 2 he is one of the co-owners of the said property, In case any information with respect to mortgage of the said property with the bank is provided, that would not be a personal information related only to Respondent No. 3, she being only one of the co-owners and would equally a personal information of the other co-owners, including respondent No. 2. Consequently providing such an information, to a co-owner of the property will not be the exemption under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, therefore, will not be available, when the information of this nature is sought by a co-owner of the property derogation of the provisions contained in section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the para 5 of the Judgement

25

W.P. (C). No. 1673 of 2011
(154.76 KB) pdf icon

29 Oct, 2013

UPSC V.S. Sushil Kumar

UPSC V.S. Sushil Kumar
Section 8(1)(j)
The respondent filed RTI application before the CPIO, U|PSC and along with other information also sought the list of finally shortlisted candidates for interview with criteria on the basis of which they were shortlisted for interview including their qualification and work experience or any other criteria-
The CPIO denied the part of information whereas first appellate authority directed to the CPIO to supply the list of final shortlisted candidates to the respondents. He , however, declined to direct disclosure of the information relating to educational qualification and experience of the shortlisted candidates- The CIC directed the CPIO to provide the Appellant the list of the candidates invited for the above interview along with the educational qualification and work experience of each of those candidates, provided these form part of the bench mark fixed for inviting candidates for interview.

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that no finding has been recorded by the Commission that is was in the larger public interest to disclose the information with respect to the qualification and experience of other shortlisted candidates. In the absence of recording such a finding the Commission could not have directed disclosure of the aforesaid information to the respondent. The impugned order passed by the CIC is set Aside.
The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the para 3 of the Judgement

26

W.P. (C) 2794/2012
(296.81 KB) pdf icon

25 Oct, 2013

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Vs. Yash Pal

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Vs. Yash Pal
The applicant sought certified copy of the call details of certain numbers. Call details to include incoming as well as outgoing details, Registration
details etc.
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that with whom a subscriber communicates and what messages he sends or receives are the personal affairs of a subscriber, disclosure of which is bound to impinge on his privacy. The information sought by the respondent, therefore, was personal information of a third party, exempt form disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the paras 4-6 of the Judgement

27

W.P. (C) 4079/2013
(307.65 KB) pdf icon

10 Oct, 2013

Union Public Service Commission Vs. G.S Sandhu & Ors.

Union Public Service Commission Vs. G.S Sandhu & Ors.
Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information- Whether the copies of office notings recorded should be provided -
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that (i) the copies of office notings recorded in the file of UPSC as well as the copies of the correspondence exchanged between UPSC and the department by which its advice was sought, to the extent shall be provided to the respondent after removing from the notings and correspondence, (a) the date of the noting and the letter, as the case may be; (b) the name and designation of the person recording the noting and writing the letter and; (c) any other indication in the noting and/or correspondence which may reveal or tend to reveal the identity of author of the noting/letter, as the case may be; (ii) if the notings and/or correspondence referred in (i) above contains personal information relating to a third party, such information will be excluded while providing the information sought by the respondent.
The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the paras 5, 6, 8, 12 & 13 of the Judgement

28

W.P. (C) 2232/2012 Along With W.P. (C) 8932/2011& CM No. 20166/2011 W.P. (C) 3421/2012 & CM No. 7235/2012 W.P. (C) 1263/2012 & CM No. 2745/2012 W.P. (C) 1677/2012 & CM No. 6186/2012 W.P. (C)1794/2012 & CM No. 3929/2012 W.P. (C)2231/2012 & CM No. 6185/2012
(357.58 KB) pdf icon

17 Sep, 2013

Union of India & Ors V.S. Rajesh Bhatia & Ors.

Union of India & Ors V.S. Rajesh Bhatia & Ors.
Section 8(1)(j)
Weather the information relating to passport holder is exempt from disclosure under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act.

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that the respondent can have no valid objection to provide the information as to whether the visa was issued in the name of one Ms. Neeru Duggal or not. It can have no valid objection to give the details of the passport including the dated of its first issue and subsequent renewals, if any. There can be no objection to disclose the nature of the documents submitted with the application, without disclosing the contents of those documents, since no personal information is disclosed in disclosing the nature of the documents alone. Similarly, there can be be objection to give the name of the police station from which the police verification was got done. The information as regards the foreign visits undertaken by the passport holder is not supposed to be available with the Regional Passport Office and, therefore cannot be provided by it. The information as to date of issue of passport number and date of its expire can certainly be disclosed since no personal information is contained in such details. However, copy of the application form cannot be provided since it would have contained personal information of the passport holder. The copies of the application for grant of passport would contain personal details of the passport holder. The validity of the passports as to whether new passports have been issued or not and if so what are the numbers of new passports cannot be refused to the respondent since these details would contain no personal information in respect of passport holder. However the address of the passport holder cannot be disclosed to him.
The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the paras 5, 8, 10-16 of the Judgement

29

W.P. (C). 3444/2012
(280.17 KB) pdf icon

23 Aug, 2013

Union of India V.S. Hardev Singh

Union of India V.S. Hardev Singh
Section 8(1) (j)
The respondent sought certain information from PIO, Regional Passport Office, New Delhi with respect to passport issued to one Sh. Beant Singh – the CPIO refused to provide copies of documents in proof of address and identity to the respondent on the ground that it was a third party information exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (j) of the Act- the Commission information directed the PIO to provide complete information as per the available record to the respondent –whether the respondent Passport Office, as proof of his address and identity (ii) the noting portion whereby issue of passport was recommended to Sh. Beant Singh.

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that it can hardly be disputed that the information provided by Sh. Beant Singh to the Regional Passport Office, as proof of his address and identity, would be a ‘personal information’ though its disclosure may not necessarily impinge on his privacy. Such information has no relationship to any public activity of Sh. Beant Singh and in fact this is not the case of the respondent that Sh. Beant Singh, as proof of his address and identity, is clearly exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and to this extent the order passed by the CIC cannot be sustained. As regards, noting on the file recommending issue of passport to Sh. Beant Singh in case does not contain any information which can be said to be personal information within the meaning of section 8(1) (j) of the Act, there can be no objection to its disclosure.
The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the paras 3-7 of the Judgement

30

Writ Petition No. 1825 of 2013
(175.30 KB) pdf icon

22 Aug, 2013

Subhash Bajiroa Khemnar V.S. Dilip Nayku Throat & Ors.

Subhash Bajiroa Khemnar V.S. Dilip Nayku Throat & Ors.
Section 8(1)(j)
The respondent No. 1 had filed an application seeking a copy of the service book of the petitioner and also the income tax returns and information about the petitioners assets – The CPIO denied the information in view of the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of the Act- The CPIO denied the information in view of the previous of sections 8(1)(j) of the Act- the FAA dismissed the First Appeal – The respondent No. 1 then filed an appeal before the State Information Commissioner and the Commission allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and directed the concerned departments to supply the necessary information to the respondent No. 1 on payment of necessary fees and /or charges the Petitioner contained that the State Information Commissioner was not justified in directing the Information Officer to supply the personal information in regard to the petitioner’s assets and income tax returns unless the Chief Information Commissioner was satisfied that the disclosure of such information was necessary in the larger public interest
The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held that the supply personal info4rmation in respect of the service record, income tax returns and assets of the petitioner unless the Commissioner was satisfied that the disclosure of the information was justified in larger public interest. Under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, there is no obligation on the Information Officer to give personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship with any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion on the privacy of the individuals unless the authority is satisfied that the disclosure of such information is justified in larger public interest. The second appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 before the State Information Commissioner stand dismissed.
The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the paras 3-7 of the Judgement