welcome to Life / Physical Safety | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
16	CIC/DS/A/2011/002221/RM (92.70 KB)	09 Jul, 2012	Shri Ram Prakash Vs. The First Appellate Authority (RTI), Income Tax Office, Lucknow The appellant submitted that the charge sheet which had been filed against him, has been quashed by the CAT Allahabad – the appellant wanted that copies of the two reports sought by him under RTI Act which should be provided to him along with the names of the two authorities. The CPIO submitted that while they have no objection to providing the reports which were relied upon by the CVC, the names need to be severed as per provisions of section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act- the Commission upheld the decision of the CPIO. Section 8(1)(g)
17	CIC/SM/A/2011/901365 (208.74 KB)	09 Jul, 2012	Mustafa Kachwala v Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai Section 8 ( 1) (g) — Information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person — The Commission held that there is nothing manifest on the record to show that the individual officers who had recorded any noting in the said file are under any risk or threat. In any case, all references to their identity, such as their signature, designation and name could be easily deleted while disclosing the photocopies of the documents. It must be remembered that the transparency demanded under the RTI Act of all public authorities would also extend to the CPIO, the Appellate Authority and the Central Information Commission in equal measure. The records generated by these authorities while dealing with any RTI application or appeal will have to be readily available in the public domain without any hindrance.
18	CIC/LS/A/2010/001710/BS/0381 (48.31 KB)	27 Jun, 2012	Ashok Golas v BSNL, New Delhi Section 8(1)(g) — Information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person — The Commission held that the CPIO by a cryptic order merely cited exemption under section 8(I)(g) of the RTI Act without giving any satisfactory reason as to how the release of such information would have endangered the life or physical safety of any person. If the AGM (Vigilance) had been actually threatened by the appellant, as claimed at least this fact could have been mentioned in the CPIO's reply. Further, there are laid down guidelines for taking disciplinary action against public servants who do not conduct themselves appropriately, however, no such action appears to have been taken. It is difficult to believe the contention of the CPIO. The required information to be disclosed.
19	CIC/DS/A/2011/002881 (87.43 KB)	06 Jun, 2012	N. Saini v LIC of India, Bhopal Section 8(1)(g) — Information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person The Appellant submitted RTI application seeking details regarding the name; designation of person whose highlighted initials appear in several documents enclosed with the RTI application The Commission held that there is no reason to deny the information sought by the appellant and the CPIO has not been able to justify the application of sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(g) in denying disclosure of information to the appellant.
20	CIC/LS/A/2011/003890 (32.25 KB)	04 Jun, 2012	T N Singh v Bhilai Steel Plant Section 8(1)(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 — the appellant had appeared in an interview for promotion from non-executive cadre to the executive cadre — vide RTI application he had sought the names and numbers of the Members of the Board— The Commission held that it would not be wise to disclose the identity of the Members of the Board. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, if the appellant is keen to inspect the documents relating to the interview of his own stream, he may be permitted to do so.
21	CIC/DS/A/2011/001429 & 1457/RM (47.36 KB)	24 Apr, 2012	Vinod Kumar Kanvaria Vs. University of Delhi Section 8(1)(g) - Information the disclosure of which is likely to endanger the life or physical safety of any person The Commission held that the disclosure of marks of a student to a third party may cause unwarranted invasion of her privacy in terms of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. CIC further held that “Information as to the names or particulars of the examiners / coordinators / scrutinizers/Head Examiners are therefore exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act”.
22	CIC/AD/A/2012/000348 (308.37 KB)	17 Apr, 2012	T.S. Raju Vs. Southern Railway, Chennai Section 8(1)(g) – Information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person The Applicant filed his RTI application seeking information in respect of a charge memorandum issued to him based on certain report of the office of the CVO, Southern Railway, Madras – the Commission held that disclosure of complete investigation report might put the lives of the persons, who contributed in the investigation process, at risk. This category of information is barred under section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. It is, therefore, directed that there shall be no disclosure with regard to these details to the Appellant.
23	CIC/SM/A/2011/000682 & 1790 (208.76 KB)	21 Mar, 2012	Krishan Lal Mittal Vs. Department of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Section 8(1)(g) – Information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or Physical safety of any person – The Commission held that in all such cases, once the prosecution is over and the competent court has passed its orders, the copies of the file noting relating to the sanction of persecution should be disclosed without any fear of such information impeding the prosecution of the offender. Invoking the provisions of sub-section 1(g) can be justified only if there is anything on record to believe that the disclosure of the information would result in the identification of the source of information or assistance given in confidence or would endanger the life or physical safety of any person. Therefore, we are not very convinced that the file noting in these cases could be denied so summarily by citing the above provisions of the RTI Act.
24	CIC/AD/A/2012/000187 (307.50 KB)	20 Mar, 2012	J.P Singh Vs. M/o Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi Section 8(1)(g)- Information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person The commission held that disclosure of complete investigation report to the appellant may endanger the life of the persons who contributed to investigation process, namely witnesses and the Investigation officer, It is, therefore, directed that the PIO shall furnish the copy of the said investigation report only after severing from it under section 10(1) of the RTI Act the names of the Investigation officer and the names of witnesses which attract the exemption under section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
25	CIC/SM/A/2010/000535 (205.91 KB)	08 Dec, 2010	V.K. Chopra vs CPIO, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Regional Office Lucknow The Appellant sought copy of the Roasanamcha which was denied to him by the PIO under section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. The Commission held that the Roasanamcha of the whole Police Station may contain sensitive information relating to other persons and may also pertain to information relating to the movement of the Police and such information is exempted. Section 8(1)(g)
26	CIC/DS/A/2010/000660 (91.97 KB)	16 Jul, 2010	Smt. Tanmayee Ranjan vs The Oriental Insurance The Apex Court has ruled that such access will be given only to that part of the answer book which does not contain any information or signature or initials of the examiners / coordinators/scrutinizers/head examiners, exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act and shall have to be removed.

16

CIC/DS/A/2011/002221/RM
(92.70 KB) pdf icon

09 Jul, 2012

Shri Ram Prakash Vs. The First Appellate Authority (RTI), Income Tax Office, Lucknow

The appellant submitted that the charge sheet which had been filed against him, has been quashed by the CAT Allahabad – the appellant wanted that copies of the two reports sought by him under RTI Act which should be provided to him along with the names of the two authorities. The CPIO submitted that while they have no objection to providing the reports which were relied upon by the CVC, the names need to be severed as per provisions of section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act- the Commission upheld the decision of the CPIO. Section 8(1)(g)

17

CIC/SM/A/2011/901365
(208.74 KB) pdf icon

09 Jul, 2012

Mustafa Kachwala v Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai

Section 8 ( 1) (g) — Information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person —
The Commission held that there is nothing manifest on the record to show that the individual officers who had recorded any noting in the said file are under any risk or threat. In any case, all references to their identity, such as their signature, designation and name could be easily deleted while disclosing the photocopies of the documents. It must be remembered that the transparency demanded under the RTI Act of all public authorities would also extend to the CPIO, the Appellate Authority and the Central Information Commission in equal measure. The records generated by these authorities while dealing with any RTI application or appeal will have to be readily available in the public domain without any hindrance.

18

CIC/LS/A/2010/001710/BS/0381
(48.31 KB) pdf icon

27 Jun, 2012

Ashok Golas v BSNL, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(g) — Information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person —
The Commission held that the CPIO by a cryptic order merely cited exemption under section 8(I)(g) of the RTI Act without giving any satisfactory reason as to how the release of such information would have endangered the life or physical safety of any person. If the AGM (Vigilance) had been actually threatened by the appellant, as claimed at least this fact could have been mentioned in the CPIO's reply. Further, there are laid down guidelines for taking disciplinary action against public servants who do not conduct themselves appropriately, however, no such action appears to have been taken. It is difficult to believe the contention of the CPIO. The required information to be disclosed.

19

CIC/DS/A/2011/002881
(87.43 KB) pdf icon

06 Jun, 2012

N. Saini v LIC of India, Bhopal

Section 8(1)(g) — Information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person The Appellant submitted RTI application seeking details regarding the name; designation of person whose highlighted initials appear in several documents enclosed with the RTI application
The Commission held that there is no reason to deny the information sought by the appellant and the CPIO has not been able to justify the application of sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(g) in denying disclosure of information to the appellant.

20

CIC/LS/A/2011/003890
(32.25 KB) pdf icon

04 Jun, 2012

T N Singh v Bhilai Steel Plant

Section 8(1)(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
— the appellant had appeared in an interview for promotion from non-executive cadre to the executive cadre — vide RTI application he had sought the names and numbers of the Members of the Board—
The Commission held that it would not be wise to disclose the identity of the Members of the Board. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, if the appellant is keen to inspect the documents relating to the interview of his own stream, he may be permitted to do so.

21

CIC/DS/A/2011/001429 & 1457/RM
(47.36 KB) pdf icon

24 Apr, 2012

Vinod Kumar Kanvaria Vs. University of Delhi

Section 8(1)(g) - Information the disclosure of which is likely to endanger the life or physical safety of any person
The Commission held that the disclosure of marks of a student to a third party may cause unwarranted invasion of her privacy in terms of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. CIC further held that “Information as to the names or particulars of the examiners / coordinators / scrutinizers/Head Examiners are therefore exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act”.

22

CIC/AD/A/2012/000348
(308.37 KB) pdf icon

17 Apr, 2012

T.S. Raju Vs. Southern Railway, Chennai

Section 8(1)(g) – Information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person
The Applicant filed his RTI application seeking information in respect of a charge memorandum issued to him based on certain report of the office of the CVO, Southern Railway, Madras – the Commission held that disclosure of complete investigation report might put the lives of the persons, who contributed in the investigation process, at risk. This category of information is barred under section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. It is, therefore, directed that there shall be no disclosure with regard to these details to the Appellant.

23

CIC/SM/A/2011/000682 & 1790
(208.76 KB) pdf icon

21 Mar, 2012

Krishan Lal Mittal Vs. Department of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions

Section 8(1)(g) – Information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or Physical safety of any person –
The Commission held that in all such cases, once the prosecution is over and the competent court has passed its orders, the copies of the file noting relating to the sanction of persecution should be disclosed without any fear of such information impeding the prosecution of the offender. Invoking the provisions of sub-section 1(g) can be justified only if there is anything on record to believe that the disclosure of the information would result in the identification of the source of information or assistance given in confidence or would endanger the life or physical safety of any person. Therefore, we are not very convinced that the file noting in these cases could be denied so summarily by citing the above provisions of the RTI Act.

24

CIC/AD/A/2012/000187
(307.50 KB) pdf icon

20 Mar, 2012

J.P Singh Vs. M/o Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(g)- Information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person
The commission held that disclosure of complete investigation report to the appellant may endanger the life of the persons who contributed to investigation process, namely witnesses and the Investigation officer, It is, therefore, directed that the PIO shall furnish the copy of the said investigation report only after severing from it under section 10(1) of the RTI Act the names of the Investigation officer and the names of witnesses which attract the exemption under section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.

25

CIC/SM/A/2010/000535
(205.91 KB) pdf icon

08 Dec, 2010

V.K. Chopra vs CPIO, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Regional Office Lucknow

The Appellant sought copy of the Roasanamcha which was denied to him by the PIO under section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. The Commission held that the Roasanamcha of the whole Police Station may contain sensitive information relating to other persons and may also pertain to information relating to the movement of the Police and such information is exempted. Section 8(1)(g)

26

CIC/DS/A/2010/000660
(91.97 KB) pdf icon

16 Jul, 2010

Smt. Tanmayee Ranjan vs The Oriental Insurance

The Apex Court has ruled that such access will be given only to that part of the answer book which does not contain any information or signature or initials of the examiners / coordinators/scrutinizers/head examiners, exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act and shall have to be removed.