welcome to Personal Information | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	HIGH COURT CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
31	W.P.(C) 9057/2011 (139.05 KB)	19 Jul, 2013	STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. MD.SHAHJAHAN STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. MD.SHAHJAHAN Section 8(1)(j) –personal information – disclosure of marks obtained in the interview and in ACR in the Departmental Examination – the Supreme Court of India in Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. 2013 has held that every entry in ACR should be informed, it leaves no scope for refusing to disclose the said information under RTI Act, when information seeker is none other the public servant concerned himself. The plea seeking exemption under section 8(1)(e),(g) and (j) of the RTI Act cannot be accepted by this Court considering the view taken in Sukhdev Singh Case by the Supreme Court. The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the paras 4-5 of the Judgement
32	W.P.(C) 906/2012 (180.30 KB)	09 Jul, 2013	Allahabad Bank Vs. Nitesh Kumar Tripathi & Anr. Allahabad Bank Vs. Nitesh Kumar Tripathi & Anr. Section 8(1)(j) – Personal Information- Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that the information with respect to the assets and liabilities of an employees, which he discloses to his employer in compliance of the Service Rule applicable to him qualifies as personal information within the meaning of section 8(1)(j) of the Act and such information cannot be directed to be disclosed unless the CPIO/PIO/Appellate Authority is satisfied that larger public interest justifies disclosure of such information. It goes without saying that such satisfaction needs to be recorded in writing before an order directing disclosure of the information can be passed. The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the paras 3-5 of the Judgement
33	WP 1814/2006 (M/S) (88.75 KB)	23 Apr, 2013	Uttaranchal Public Service Commission Vs. Chief Information Commissioner & Ors. Uttaranchal Public Service Commission Vs. Chief Information Commissioner & Ors. Section 8 (1)(j) –Personal Information – The applicant sought information such as the criteria applied in the selection procedure of the candidates to the post of Lecturer Biology in Inter College etc. The Hon’ble High Court of Uttaranchal held that information sought is of a general nature and the marks obtained in a competitive examination cannot be held to be an intellectual property of an individual. The petitioner cannot deny the information as to how many marks has been obtained by Mohd. Asif Tyagi and other selected candidates and their educational qualification and experience. In my opinion, this information is not covered under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and the learned Chief Information Commissioner has rightly directed the petitioner to give information. The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the Judgement
34	W.P. 20485/2012 (137.72 KB)	17 Apr, 2013	The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai – 600 104 Vs. K. Elango & Anr. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai – 600 104 Vs. K. Elango & Anr. Section 8(1)(j) – Personal Information – the appellant asked for details relating to the number of subordinate Judges, employees, complaints of bribe and so on in the subordinate judiciary. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras held that 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 matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the paras 12-14, 21, 29, 51, 53, 54 & 60 of the Judgement
35	WP (C) 2506/2010 (231.64 KB)	08 Mar, 2013	THDC India Limited Vs. T. Chandra Biswas THDC India Limited Vs. T. Chandra Biswas Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information- Applicant sought information on her Annual Confidential Report etc. the Hon’ble High court of Delhi held that the right to obtain her own ACRs inherent in the respondent which cannot be denied to the respondent under the provisions of sections 8(1)(d),(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The ACRs are meant to inform an employee as to the manner in which he has performed in the given period, the areas which require his attention, so that he may improve his performance qua his work. On the other aspect, I am not persuaded by the argument of the petitioner that the information with regard to the DPC proceedings would fall within the exception provided under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. In my view, information with regard to DPC proceedings cannot come within the ambit and scope of any of three exclusions i.e. commercial confidence, trade secret and intellectual property. The information regarding assessment of employees by a DPC is neither commercial in nature nor is it a trade secret or intellectual property which could harm the competitive position of another employee i.e. a third party. The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the paras 5 & 10 of the Judgement
36	Civil Writ Petition No. 4930 of 2011 (115.37 KB)	07 Mar, 2013	K.K. Sharma V.S. State of Haryana & Ors K.K. Sharma V.S. State of Haryana & Ors Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information The Petitioner filed RTI application the SPIO seeking information relating to certain officers in the nature of the account number /name of the Bank in which the salary of the Officers is being sent, copies of TA bills, copies of GPF/PPF statement of the officers with effect from the date of their joining till March, 2009, copies of LTC bills and supply of PAN number of the officers along with full details of the income tax deposited year - wise – the SPIOP informed the petitioner that consent of the officer concerned with regards to disclosure of information had been sought and two officers had objected as regards to the supply of information citing the bar contained in sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. Response from the other officers was still awaited and as such, it was not possible to supply the information sought The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that the provisions of RTI Act would not be available to a disgruntled employee seeking information as regards public officials which is otherwise personal in in nature on account of furtherance of a personal vendetta. No infirmity in the impugned orders passed by First Appellant Authority and the State Information Commission. The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the paras 4, 6, 10, 11, 13 & 14 of the Judgement
37	CWP 4239/2013 (O&M) (161.08 KB)	04 Mar, 2013	Vijay Dheer Vs. State Information Commission, Punjab & Ors. Vijay Dheer Vs. State Information Commission, Punjab & Ors. Section 8(1)(j) – Personal Information – Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana held that the State Information Commission, Punjab while passing the impugned order has attempted to strike a balance between public interest as also the privacy of the individual concerned i.e. the petitioner. The PIO concerned has been directed to provide such part of the information sought by respondent no.3 which primarily relates to the mode of appointment and promotion of the petitioner to a public post. The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the Judgement
38	Writ Petition No. 322/2013 (216.44 KB)	18 Feb, 2013	Chief Officer & First Appellate Officer, Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board & Anr. Vs Shri Ramdas Masurkar & SIC Chief Officer & First Appellate Officer, Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board & Anr. Vs Shri Ramdas Masurkar & SIC Section 8(1)(j) The respondent No. 1 filed an application and requested for information about the declaration of income wealth of two of its employees – the PIO denied the information in view of the provision of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act- in a second appeal, the State Information Commission allowed the appeal and directed the PIO to disclose the information requested by the respondent No. 1. The Hon’ble Court of Bombay held that under the provisions of sections 8(1)(j)of the RTI Act it was not obligatory on the part of the petitioner to supply the information which was personal in nature and the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Impugned order passed by the State Information Commission is set aside. The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the Judgement
39	LPA No. 618/2012 (176.31 KB)	06 Nov, 2012	Union Public Service Commission Vs. R.K. Jain Union Public Service Commission Vs. R.K. Jain Section 8(I)(j) — Personal Information — the respondent sought the information from the PIO, UPSC, requesting:Inspection of all records, documents, note sheets, manuscripts, records, reports, office memorandum, part files and files relating to the proposed disciplinary action etc. The PIO of the appellant UPSC declined to furnish the information sought, stating that it was of personal nature and disclosure thereof had no relationship to any public activity or interest and claimed exemption under section 8(I)(j) of the RTl Act — the First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal — the CIC allowed the appeal of the respondent holding that as far as the appellant UPSC is concerned, it receives references from the Ministries and Departments in disciplinary matters to give its comments and recommendations and had been consulted in the matter and whatever records are held by the appellant UPSC in this regard have to be disclosed because the same cannot be classified as personal information merely on the ground that it concerns some particular officer — the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant UPSC — the Division Bench of Delhi High allowed the appeal filed by the appellant UPSC and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court and held that what is exempt in the hands of the employer would certainly be exempt in the hands of consultant of the employer also. The advice given by the appellant UPSC would necessarily pertain to the disciplinary action against Sh. G.S. Narang. Section 8(I)(j) exempts from disclosure personal information, irrespective of with whom it is possessed and from whom disclosure thereof is sought. Petition allowed. The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in paras 3, 5-7, 9, 11, 12 & 14 of the Judgement
40	W.P. (C) : 1243/2011 & C.M. No. 2618 / 2011 (for stay) (280.10 KB)	13 Jul, 2012	UPSC Vs. R.K. Jain UPSC Vs. R.K. Jain Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information — The respondent by an application filed under section 6 of the Act, sought the inspection of the records, documents, note sheets, manuscripts, records, reports, office memorandum, part files and files relating to the proposed disciplinary action etc. — the CPIO of the petitioner declined to provide the same on the ground that the information sought pertained to the disciplinary case of Sh. G. S. Narang, which was of personal nature, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. The petitioner, therefore, claimed exemption from disclosing the information under section 8(1)(j) of the Act — the CIC directed the CPIO to invite the Appellant on any mutually convenient date within 15 working days from the receipt of this order and to show him the relevant records in the possession of the UPSC for his inspection. The Petitioner has assailed the decision of the CIC The Hon\'ble High Court of Delhi held that the Petitioner in the present case, being a constitutional body and thereby a \"public authority\" under the Act, cannot claim the exemption of personal information qua itself and its officials under section 8(1)(j). Even otherwise, its act of tendering advice to the concerned Ministry on matters relating to disciplinary proceedings against a charged officer is in discharge of a public duty entrusted to it by the law itself, and is thereby a public activity. Consequently, the defence is also not available to the officers of the Petitioner with respect to their acts and conduct relevant to the discharge of their official duties. The information sought, in the present case, also does not relate to the privacy of the charged officer. Disciplinary inquiry of the charged officer is with regard to the alleged irregularities committed by him while discharging public duties and public functions. The disclosure of such information cannot be regarded as invasion of his privacy. The Hon\'ble High Court further, held that the information sought relates to the note sheets and final opinion rendered by the UPSC regarding imposition of penalty/punishment on the charged officer. Such information, as is evident from a plain reading, relates to notings and opinion post investigation i.e., after the investigation is complete. Disclosure of such information cannot, be any means whatsoever be held to \"impede the process of investigation\" which could be raised only when an investigation is ongoing. As such the exemption under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act also cannot be raised in by the petitioner in the present case. The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in paras 3, 5, 8, 13, 16, 17, 19-22, 24-26, 30-32, 34, 36, 37 & 39 of the Judgement
41	W.P.(C) 3382/2012 (116.66 KB)	14 Jun, 2012	PRESIDENT’S SECRETARIAT Vs NITISH KUMAR TRIPATHI PRESIDENT’S SECRETARIAT Vs NITISH KUMAR TRIPATHI Section 8(1)(j) – Personal Information The Respondent filed the RTI application and sought information in relation to the donation made by the president from time to time – the information was not disclosed by invoking section 8(1)(j) of the RTI act i.e. by treating the information as personal information, the disclosure of which was stated to be not in the public interest – the CIC has, however, rejected the said defence of the petitioner, and has directed disclosure of the information The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that the donation made by the President are out of public funds. Public funds are those funds which are collected by the President are out of public funds. Public funds are those funds which are collected by the state from the citizen by imposition of taxes, duties, cess, service charges, etc. These funds are held by the state in trust for being utilized for the benefit of the general public. Every citizen is entitled to know as to how the money, which is collected by the state form him by exaction has been utilised. Merely because the person making the donations happens to be the President of India, is no ground to withhold the said information. The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in paras 2 & 9 of the Judgement
42	LPA No. 487/2011 (208.62 KB)	28 May, 2012	All India Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Vikrant Bhuria All India Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Vikrant Bhuria Section 8(1)(j)- Personal Information – the respondent had sought the following information from the Information Officer of the Appellant: I. Certified copies of original questions papers of all Mch super-speciality entrance exam conducted from 2005-2010. 2. Certified copies of correct answers of all respective questions asked in Mch super-speciality entrance exam conducted from 2005-2010. The Information Officer of the appellant refused to supply the information on the ground that the questions and their answers are prepared and edited by AIIMS, thus the product remains ''intellectual property' of AllMS. Since these questions are part of the question bank and likely to be used again, the supply of question booklet would be against larger public interest and claimed exemption under sections 8 (I)(d) and 8(I)(e) of the RTI Act — the CIC held that the question papers could not be termed as "intellectual property*' and observing that the appellant had been unable to invoke any exemption sub-clause of section 8(1) of the Act to deny information and further holding that the refusal of information was not tenable under the Act, allowed the appeal of the respondent and directed the appellant to provide complete information to the respondent — the learned Single Judge, dismissed the writ petition of the appellant challenging the aforesaid order of CIC The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that the information seeker as aforesaid is not the examinee himself. The possibility of the information seeker being himself or having acted at the instance of a coaching institute or a publisher and acting with the motive of making commercial gains from such information also cannot be ruled out. There are no questions of transparency and accountability in the present case. When we apply the tests aforesaid to the factual scenario as urged by the appellants and noted above, the conclusion is irresistible that it is not in public interest that the information sought be divulged and the information sought is such which on a purposive construction of section 8 is exempt from disclosure. We therefore allow this appeal and set aside the orders of the CIC directing the appellant to disclose the information and the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant. he matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in paras 2 & 9 of the Judgement
43	CWP No. 4965 of 2011 (148.16 KB)	28 May, 2012	Neeraj Kush VS. State Information Commission Haryana and Ors. Neeraj Kush VS. State Information Commission Haryana and Ors. 8(1)(j) — Personal Information The petitioner moved an application before the State Public Information Officer/respondent No. 3, requesting therein for supply of certified copy of complaint filed by one Sh. Mukesh Malhotra, the then Inspector, Criminal Investigation Department, against Sh. Sukhbir Goyat, District Attorney for violation of human rights because of misbehaviour and maltreatment — this information was refused by respondent No. 3, on the ground that the Criminal Investigation Department has been exempted from— providing information under the RTI Act as per the Notification dated 29.12.2005, issued by the State of Haryana under section 24(4) of the RTI Act — against this order, petition preferred first appeal before the Authority under the RTI Act which on the same grounds rejected the claim of the petitioner — the order was further challenged by the petitioner before the Second Appellate Authority, i.e. State Information Commission, Haryana/respondent No. 3, under the RTI Act. The same has also been rejected, on the ground that the petitioner is a third party and has no locus standi in the matter and the complaint also does not indicate any violation of human rights. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that is in agreement with the opinion expressed by the State Information Commission, Haryana, as the petitioner is a stranger and, thus third party, as defined under section 2(n) of the RTI Act. Information qua the third party can only be provided by the competent authority it is of the opinion, if the public interest in disclosure of the same outweighs in importance, any possible harm and injury to the third party. A person when approaches this Court the writ jurisdiction has to satisfy its bonafides before any equitable relief can be claimed him under the discretionary writ jurisdiction of this Court exercised under Article 226 of Constitution of India. In any case, as per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the information rightly been declined by the State Information Commission as the same is exempted under the said provision also. The present petition is totally misconceived and lacks bonafide on the part of the petitioner which calls for appropriate action by the court as the petitioner has approached this court not with clean hands but for some ulterior reasons, may be to rake up his personal vengeance etc. thus calling for imposition of costs. The present writ petition is dismissed with Rs. 10,000/- as costs. The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the Judgement
44	WP(C) 120/2010 (87.51 KB)	29 Sep, 2010	UOI Vs Balendra Kumar The information on the expenditure of Govt money by a Govt official in an official capacity cannot be termed as personal information.
45	W.P. (C) 2234/2010 (66.62 KB)	07 Apr, 2010	MANISH KUMAR Vs PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND ANR. MANISH KUMAR Vs PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND ANR. The Petitioner is aggrieved sought information relating to tax evasion case of one Mr. Pawan Kumar. The Income Tax Department commenced investigations. CIC held that the details of the return of income/wealth filed by Pawan Kumar were in the nature of personal information of the concerned tax payer and confidential under Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the information was held by the tax authority as personal information and, therefore, could not be disclosed under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. It was also pointed out that the Petitioner had matrimonial disputes with his wife and the said Pawan Kumar was his father‐in‐law. The information was being sought by him in order to strengthen his position in the matrimonial dispute and, therefore, the disclosure would not be in public interest but was really concerning the private interest of the Petitioner. The High Court upheld the decision of CIC. The Petition dismissed. The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the Judgement

31

W.P.(C) 9057/2011
(139.05 KB) pdf icon

19 Jul, 2013

STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. MD.SHAHJAHAN

STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. MD.SHAHJAHAN
Section 8(1)(j) –personal information – disclosure of marks obtained in the interview and in ACR in the Departmental Examination – the Supreme Court of India in Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. 2013 has held that every entry in ACR should be informed, it leaves no scope for refusing to disclose the said information under RTI Act, when information seeker is none other the public servant concerned himself. The plea seeking exemption under section 8(1)(e),(g) and (j) of the RTI Act cannot be accepted by this Court considering the view taken in Sukhdev Singh Case by the Supreme Court.
The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the paras 4-5 of the Judgement

32

W.P.(C) 906/2012
(180.30 KB) pdf icon

09 Jul, 2013

Allahabad Bank Vs. Nitesh Kumar Tripathi & Anr.

Allahabad Bank Vs. Nitesh Kumar Tripathi & Anr.
Section 8(1)(j) – Personal Information- Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that the information with respect to the assets and liabilities of an employees, which he discloses to his employer in compliance of the Service Rule applicable to him qualifies as personal information within the meaning of section 8(1)(j) of the Act and such information cannot be directed to be disclosed unless the CPIO/PIO/Appellate Authority is satisfied that larger public interest justifies disclosure of such information. It goes without saying that such satisfaction needs to be recorded in writing before an order directing disclosure of the information can be passed.
The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the paras 3-5 of the Judgement

33

WP 1814/2006 (M/S)
(88.75 KB) pdf icon

23 Apr, 2013

Uttaranchal Public Service Commission Vs. Chief Information Commissioner & Ors.

Uttaranchal Public Service Commission Vs. Chief Information Commissioner & Ors.
Section 8 (1)(j) –Personal Information –
The applicant sought information such as the criteria applied in the selection procedure of the candidates to the
post of Lecturer Biology in Inter College etc.
The Hon’ble High Court of Uttaranchal held that information sought is of a general nature and the marks obtained in a competitive examination cannot be held to be an intellectual property of an individual. The petitioner cannot deny the information as to how many marks has been obtained by Mohd. Asif Tyagi and other selected candidates and their educational qualification and experience. In my opinion, this information is not covered under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and the learned Chief Information Commissioner has rightly directed the petitioner to give information.
The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the Judgement

34

W.P. 20485/2012
(137.72 KB) pdf icon

17 Apr, 2013

The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai – 600 104 Vs. K. Elango & Anr.

The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai – 600 104 Vs. K. Elango & Anr.
Section 8(1)(j) – Personal Information – the appellant asked for details relating to the number of subordinate Judges, employees, complaints of bribe and so on in the subordinate judiciary.
The Hon’ble High Court of Madras held that 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 matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the paras 12-14, 21, 29, 51, 53, 54 & 60 of the Judgement

35

WP (C) 2506/2010
(231.64 KB) pdf icon

08 Mar, 2013

THDC India Limited Vs. T. Chandra Biswas

THDC India Limited Vs. T. Chandra Biswas
Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information- Applicant sought information on her Annual Confidential Report etc. the Hon’ble High court of Delhi held that the right to obtain her own ACRs inherent in the respondent which cannot be denied to the respondent under the provisions of sections 8(1)(d),(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The ACRs are meant to inform an employee as to the manner in which he has performed in the given period, the areas which require his attention, so that he may improve his performance qua his work. On the other aspect, I am not persuaded by the argument of the petitioner that the information with regard to the DPC proceedings would fall within the exception provided under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. In my view, information with regard to DPC proceedings cannot come within the ambit and scope of any of three exclusions i.e. commercial confidence, trade secret and intellectual property. The information regarding assessment of employees by a DPC is neither commercial in nature nor is it a trade secret or intellectual property which could harm the competitive position of another employee i.e. a third party.
The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the paras 5 & 10 of the Judgement

36

Civil Writ Petition No. 4930 of 2011
(115.37 KB) pdf icon

07 Mar, 2013

K.K. Sharma V.S. State of Haryana & Ors

K.K. Sharma V.S. State of Haryana & Ors
Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information

The Petitioner filed RTI application the SPIO seeking information relating to certain officers in the nature of the account number /name of the Bank in which the salary of the Officers is being sent, copies of TA bills, copies of GPF/PPF statement of the officers with effect from the date of their joining till March, 2009, copies of LTC bills and supply of PAN number of the officers along with full details of the income tax deposited year - wise – the SPIOP informed the petitioner that consent of the officer concerned with regards to disclosure of information had been sought and two officers had objected as regards to the supply of information citing the bar contained in sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. Response from the other officers was still awaited and as such, it was not possible to supply the information sought

The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that the provisions of RTI Act would not be available to a disgruntled employee seeking information as regards public officials which is otherwise personal in in nature on account of furtherance of a personal vendetta. No infirmity in the impugned orders passed by First Appellant Authority and the State Information Commission.
The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the paras 4, 6, 10, 11, 13 & 14 of the Judgement

37

CWP 4239/2013 (O&M)
(161.08 KB) pdf icon

04 Mar, 2013

Vijay Dheer Vs. State Information Commission, Punjab & Ors.

Vijay Dheer Vs. State Information Commission, Punjab & Ors.
Section 8(1)(j) – Personal Information – Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana held that the State Information Commission, Punjab while passing the impugned order has attempted to strike a balance between public interest as also the privacy of the individual concerned i.e. the petitioner. The PIO concerned has been directed to provide such part of the information sought by respondent no.3 which primarily relates to the mode of appointment and promotion of the petitioner to a public post.
The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the Judgement

38

Writ Petition No. 322/2013
(216.44 KB) pdf icon

18 Feb, 2013

Chief Officer & First Appellate Officer, Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board & Anr. Vs Shri Ramdas Masurkar & SIC

Chief Officer & First Appellate Officer, Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board & Anr. Vs Shri Ramdas Masurkar & SIC
Section 8(1)(j) The respondent No. 1 filed an application and requested for information about the declaration of income wealth of two of its employees – the PIO denied the information in view of the provision of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act- in a second appeal, the State Information Commission allowed the appeal and directed the PIO to disclose the information requested by the respondent No. 1.
The Hon’ble Court of Bombay held that under the provisions of sections 8(1)(j)of the RTI Act it was not obligatory on the part of the petitioner to supply the information which was personal in nature and the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Impugned order passed by the State Information Commission is set aside.
The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the Judgement

39

LPA No. 618/2012
(176.31 KB) pdf icon

06 Nov, 2012

Union Public Service Commission Vs. R.K. Jain

Union Public Service Commission Vs. R.K. Jain
Section 8(I)(j) — Personal Information — the respondent sought the information from the PIO, UPSC, requesting:Inspection of all records, documents, note sheets, manuscripts, records, reports, office memorandum, part files and files relating to the proposed disciplinary action etc.
The PIO of the appellant UPSC declined to furnish the information sought, stating that it was of personal nature and disclosure thereof had no relationship to any public activity or interest and claimed exemption under section 8(I)(j) of the RTl Act — the First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal — the CIC allowed the appeal of the respondent holding that as far as the appellant UPSC is concerned, it receives references from the Ministries and Departments in disciplinary matters to give its comments and recommendations and had been consulted in the matter and whatever records are held by the appellant UPSC in this regard have to be disclosed because the same cannot be classified as personal information merely on the ground that it concerns some particular officer — the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant UPSC — the Division Bench of Delhi High allowed the appeal filed by the appellant UPSC and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court and held that what is exempt in the hands of the employer would certainly be exempt in the hands of consultant of the employer also. The advice given by the appellant UPSC would necessarily pertain to the disciplinary action against Sh. G.S. Narang. Section 8(I)(j) exempts from disclosure personal information, irrespective of with whom it is possessed and from whom disclosure thereof is sought. Petition allowed.
The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in paras 3, 5-7, 9, 11, 12 & 14 of the Judgement

40

W.P. (C) : 1243/2011 & C.M. No. 2618 / 2011 (for stay)
(280.10 KB) pdf icon

13 Jul, 2012

UPSC Vs. R.K. Jain

UPSC Vs. R.K. Jain
Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information —
The respondent by an application filed under section 6 of the Act, sought the inspection of the records, documents, note sheets, manuscripts, records, reports, office memorandum, part files and files relating to the proposed disciplinary action etc. — the CPIO of the petitioner declined to provide the same on the ground that the information sought pertained to the disciplinary case of Sh. G. S. Narang, which was of personal nature, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. The petitioner, therefore, claimed exemption from disclosing the information under section 8(1)(j) of the Act — the CIC directed the CPIO to invite the Appellant on any mutually convenient date within 15 working days from the receipt of this order and to show him the relevant records in the possession of the UPSC for his inspection. The Petitioner has assailed the decision of the CIC
The Hon\'ble High Court of Delhi held that the Petitioner in the present case, being a constitutional body and thereby a \"public authority\" under the Act, cannot claim the exemption of personal information qua itself and its officials under section 8(1)(j). Even otherwise, its act of tendering advice to the concerned Ministry on matters relating to disciplinary proceedings against a charged officer is in discharge of a public duty entrusted to it by the law itself, and is thereby a public activity. Consequently, the defence is also not available to the officers of the Petitioner with respect to their acts and conduct relevant to the discharge of their official duties. The information sought, in the present case, also does not relate to the privacy of the charged officer. Disciplinary inquiry of the charged officer is with regard to the alleged irregularities committed by him while discharging public duties and public functions. The disclosure of such information cannot be regarded as invasion of his privacy. The Hon\'ble High Court further, held that the information sought relates to the note sheets and final opinion rendered by the UPSC regarding imposition of penalty/punishment on the charged officer. Such information, as is evident from a plain reading, relates to notings and opinion post investigation i.e., after the investigation is complete. Disclosure of such information cannot, be any means whatsoever be held to \"impede the process of investigation\" which could be raised only when an investigation is ongoing. As such the exemption under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act also cannot be raised in by the petitioner in the present case.
The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in paras 3, 5, 8, 13, 16, 17, 19-22, 24-26, 30-32, 34, 36, 37 & 39 of the Judgement

41

W.P.(C) 3382/2012
(116.66 KB) pdf icon

14 Jun, 2012

PRESIDENT’S SECRETARIAT Vs NITISH KUMAR TRIPATHI

PRESIDENT’S SECRETARIAT Vs NITISH KUMAR TRIPATHI
Section 8(1)(j) – Personal Information
The Respondent filed the RTI application and sought information in relation to the donation made by the president from time to time – the information was not disclosed by invoking section 8(1)(j) of the RTI act i.e. by treating the information as personal information, the disclosure of which was stated to be not in the public interest – the CIC has, however, rejected the said defence of the petitioner, and has directed disclosure of the information
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that the donation made by the President are out of public funds. Public funds are those funds which are collected by the President are out of public funds. Public funds are those funds which are collected by the state from the citizen by imposition of taxes, duties, cess, service charges, etc. These funds are held by the state in trust for being utilized for the benefit of the general public. Every citizen is entitled to know as to how the money, which is collected by the state form him by exaction has been utilised. Merely because the person making the donations happens to be the President of India, is no ground to withhold the said information.
The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in paras 2 & 9 of the Judgement

42

LPA No. 487/2011
(208.62 KB) pdf icon

28 May, 2012

All India Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Vikrant Bhuria

All India Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Vikrant Bhuria
Section 8(1)(j)- Personal Information – the respondent had sought the following information from the Information Officer of the Appellant:

I. Certified copies of original questions papers of all Mch super-speciality entrance exam conducted from 2005-2010.
2. Certified copies of correct answers of all respective questions asked in Mch super-speciality entrance exam conducted from 2005-2010.
The Information Officer of the appellant refused to supply the information on the ground that the questions and their answers are prepared and edited by AIIMS, thus the product remains ''intellectual property' of AllMS. Since these questions are part of the question bank and likely to be used again, the supply of question booklet would be against larger public interest and claimed exemption under sections 8 (I)(d) and 8(I)(e) of the RTI Act — the CIC held that the question papers could not be termed as "intellectual property*' and observing that the appellant had been unable to invoke any exemption sub-clause of section 8(1) of the Act to deny information and further holding that the refusal of information was not tenable under the Act, allowed the appeal of the respondent and directed the appellant to provide complete information to the respondent — the learned Single Judge, dismissed the writ petition of the appellant challenging the aforesaid order of CIC
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that the information seeker as aforesaid is not the examinee himself. The possibility of the information seeker being himself or having acted at the instance of a coaching institute or a publisher and acting with the motive of making commercial gains from such information also cannot be ruled out. There are no questions of transparency and accountability in the present case. When we apply the tests aforesaid to the factual scenario as urged by the appellants and noted above, the conclusion is irresistible that it is not in public interest that the information sought be divulged and the information sought is such which on a purposive construction of section 8 is exempt from disclosure. We therefore allow this appeal and set aside the orders of the CIC directing the appellant to disclose the information and the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant.
he matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in paras 2 & 9 of the Judgement

43

CWP No. 4965 of 2011
(148.16 KB) pdf icon

28 May, 2012

Neeraj Kush VS. State Information Commission Haryana and Ors.

Neeraj Kush VS. State Information Commission Haryana and Ors.
8(1)(j) — Personal Information
The petitioner moved an application before the State Public Information Officer/respondent No. 3, requesting therein for supply of certified copy of complaint filed by one Sh. Mukesh Malhotra, the then Inspector, Criminal Investigation Department, against Sh. Sukhbir Goyat, District Attorney for violation of human rights because of misbehaviour and maltreatment — this information was refused by respondent No. 3, on the ground that the Criminal Investigation Department has been exempted from— providing information under the RTI Act as per the Notification dated 29.12.2005, issued by the State of Haryana under section 24(4) of the RTI Act — against this order, petition preferred first appeal before the Authority under the RTI Act which on the same grounds rejected the claim of the petitioner — the order was further challenged by the petitioner before the Second Appellate Authority, i.e. State Information Commission, Haryana/respondent No. 3, under the RTI Act. The same has also been rejected, on the ground that the petitioner is a third party and has no locus standi in the matter and the complaint also does not indicate any violation of human rights.
The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that is in agreement with the opinion expressed by the State Information Commission, Haryana, as the petitioner is a stranger and, thus third party, as defined under section 2(n) of the RTI Act. Information qua the third party can only be provided by the competent authority it is of the opinion, if the public interest in disclosure of the same outweighs in importance, any possible harm and injury to the third party. A person when approaches this Court the writ jurisdiction has to satisfy its bonafides before any equitable relief can be claimed him under the discretionary writ jurisdiction of this Court exercised under Article 226 of Constitution of India. In any case, as per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the information rightly been declined by the State Information Commission as the same is exempted under the said provision also. The present petition is totally misconceived and lacks bonafide on the part of the petitioner which calls for appropriate action by the court as the petitioner has approached this court not with clean hands but for some ulterior reasons, may be to rake up his personal vengeance etc. thus calling for imposition of costs. The present writ petition is dismissed with Rs. 10,000/- as costs.
The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the Judgement

44

WP(C) 120/2010
(87.51 KB) pdf icon

29 Sep, 2010

UOI Vs Balendra Kumar

The information on the expenditure of Govt money by a Govt official in an official capacity cannot be termed as personal information.

45

W.P. (C) 2234/2010
(66.62 KB) pdf icon

07 Apr, 2010

MANISH KUMAR Vs PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND ANR.

MANISH KUMAR Vs PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND ANR.
The Petitioner is aggrieved sought information relating to tax evasion case of one Mr. Pawan Kumar. The Income Tax Department commenced investigations. CIC held that the details of the return of income/wealth filed by Pawan Kumar were in the nature of personal information of the concerned tax payer and confidential under Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the information was held by the tax authority as personal information and, therefore, could not be disclosed under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. It was also pointed out that the Petitioner had matrimonial disputes with his wife and the said Pawan Kumar was his father‐in‐law. The information was being sought by him in order to strengthen his position in the matrimonial dispute and, therefore, the disclosure would not be in public interest but was really concerning the private interest of the Petitioner. The High Court upheld the decision of CIC. The Petition dismissed.
The matter of 'personal information' has been dealt by the Hon'ble HIgh Court in the Judgement