welcome to Personal Information | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
31	CIC/BS/A/2016/900115 (58.40 KB)	30 Mar, 2017	Mr. Yugandhar Reddy Kadiveti Vs. Central Public Information Officer Asstt. GM (Admn./Mktg.) BSNL, Kadapa. The appellant filed RTI application dated 09.03.2015 seeking information on 5 points regarding LTC availed by Sri M Eswara Reddy, DE (Rtd.) BSNL. CPIO stated that “information sought by him is related to third party information, the disclosure of which may cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of third person and it is also not associated with any public activity or interest. The same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005”. CIC upheld the decision of CPIO.
32	CIC/BS/A/2016/001713 CIC/BS/A/2016/000503 (99.16 KB)	30 Mar, 2017	Shri P Raghvendra Rao Vs. Central Public Information Officer, Joint GM, BSNL, West Godavari, A.P. The appellant filed RTI application dated 7.7.2015 seeking information regarding status of compassionate appointment in case of Shri P. Venkata Subbacharyulu (Late) Line-Man, BSNL. Sriparru. The respondent stated that vide letter dated 13.7.2015 they had denied the information to the appellant u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as the matter relates to a third party. CIC upheld the decision.
33	CIC/SA/A/2015/001712/MP (28.18 KB)	29 Mar, 2017	Shri Dharamveer, Vs. Sikkim Manipal University Shri Dharamveer, the appellant, sought authentic copy of BCA degree certificate in case of his wife Smt. Preeti as she had lost her original degree certificate. The Commission holds that the appellant was trying to seek personal information of a third party and the information is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. No larger public interest is involved in the matter. Section 8(1)(j)
34	CIC/BS/A/2016/001535 (85.75 KB)	29 Mar, 2017	Shri Naresh Pal vs Central Public Information Officer, General Manager(HR), BSNL The appellant filed RTI application dated 19.2.2016 seeking: “1) copy of question letter issued by the DGM(vig.), O/o CGM, BSNL, Haryana Circle, Ambala regarding complaint against the work of “provision of Aluminium partition for AO(TR) & staff room at TE Building Palwal” ; 2) copy of reply submitted by Shri S.K. Batra, the then EE(Civil), Faridabad who was the Engineer-in-charge of the work against the questions issued by the /DGM(Vig) O/o CGM, BSNL, Haryana Circle, Ambala,; etc. The respondent stated that they have denied the information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission is of the view that since the investigation has already been completed, the respondent should provide to the appellant information/ documents to the applicant.
35	CIC/BS/A/2016/000253 CIC/BS/A/2016/000254 CIC/BS/A/2016/000263 CIC/BS/A/2016/000262 CIC/BS/A/2016/000261 CIC/BS/A/2016/000260 (58.32 KB)	29 Mar, 2017	Pramod Kumar, Vaishali, Bihar Vs. Central Public Information Officer Supdt., Deptt. Of Posts CIC observed that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6362 of 2013 Union Public Service Commission Vs. Gourhari Kamila decision 06- 08-2013 has observed that the education and experience certificates are personal information. Hence, education qualification and name of school etc. cannot be provided to the appellant, being personal information. No larger public interest has been claimed by the appellant.
36	CIC/YA/A/2016/001354 (49.06 KB)	23 Feb, 2017	Shaikh Mohammed Khalid vs Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that the suspension notice/order, Departmental Enquiry is personal information and is a matter between the employee and the employer, thus, such information cannot be disclosed unless larger public interest involved.
37	CIC/SH/A/2016/00208 CIC/SH/A/2016/00825 CIC/SH/A/2016/000826 CIC/SH/C/2016/000138 (210.74 KB)	20 Feb, 2017	Narvdeshwar Prasad Sinha vs IDBI Bank Limited, Mumbai Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that while information can be provided regarding the stations of postings of an officer and his/her tenure at each place, the information regarding the requests for transfer of officials often contains information regarding their family circumstances and illness etc., which is their personal information, exempted from disclosure u/s of the RTI Act. No ground to direct disclosure of information.
38	CIC/SH/A/2015/002235 (148.61 KB)	15 Feb, 2017	Vijay N Hiremath vs Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, Belgaum Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that the information cannot be regarded as the personal information of an employee of the public authority, therefore, section 8(1)(j) is not applicable in this case. Further, section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act is also not applicable as the disclosure of the information will not result in breach of any fiduciary relationship. The attendance record of a public servant should be a matter of public record, therefore, we see no ground for denial of the information sought by the Appellant.
39	CIC/SH/A/2015/001900 (132.37 KB)	31 Jan, 2017	Jitendra Prasad Singh vs Madhya Bihar Gamin Bank, Patna Section 8(1) (j) Personal Information. The Commission held that it see no ground to interfere with the decision of the CPIO to deny the information concerning the benefits given to the third party employee under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has not established any larger public interest for disclosure of the information to him. His allegation regarding discrimination in the matter of penionery benefits given to different officials cannot be treated as the ground of larger public interest.
40	CIC/SD/A/2016/000149/SD (90.79 KB)	24 Jan, 2017	Soma Ray vs School of Foreign languages, New Delhi Section 8(1)(g) Information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person. Section 80) (j). Personal Information. The Commission held that the CPIO has denied the information based on the said exemptions as a blanket provision. The CPIO has failed to specify which particular exemption applies to which query as he has to provide a premise for denying information under the various provisions of sections 8 and/or 9 of the RTI Act. The reliance of the CPIO on sections 8(1)(e) & (h) of the RTI Act is rather misplaced and irrelevant. However, sections 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(g) has been adequately invoked. The same will be covered by the exemption of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as it concerns personal information of third parties, disclosure of which has no apparent larger public interest. The details of question paper setters, evaluators and board of examiners are exempted under section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
41	CIC/VS/A/2014/003178-BJ (100.43 KB)	18 Jan, 2017	Rajesh Kumar Yadav vs North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information. The Commission relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v Central Information Commission & Ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012, wherein, it was held that the performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual.
42	CIC/VS/A/2014/003313-BJ (107.03 KB)	18 Jan, 2017	Chandrakanth N. Naik vs CPIO, Konkan Railways Corporations Limited Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that all the information regarding government contracts with the individuals must be made public. However, the personal information of the third party can be exempted from disclosure and severed from the information sought under the provision of section 8(1)(j) read with section 10 of the RTI Act. The respondent is directed to provide a copy of the contract entered by the respondent with S.G Bhat, Proprietor, Hovyak Associates, to the appellant, severing personal details of the third party as per section 10 of the RTI Act.
43	CIC/RM/A/2014/001130 (47.94 KB)	17 Jan, 2017	Vijay Prakash Gupta vs CBSE Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The appellant filed RTI application seeking information relating to admission of his son in Ryan International School, Ghaziabad, including certified copies of all mandatory documents submitted, additional documents submitted, additional fees and charges paid by his wife along with other related. The appellant's wife refused to grant permission on ground of third party information. The CPIO denied the information under section 80) (j) of the RTI Act. The Commission upheld the decision of the respondent.
44	CIC/SA/A/2016/000591 (100.29 KB)	17 Jan, 2017	Mohd Naushaduddin vs CBSE, Ajmer Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that the RTI Act does not allow the CPIO to take shelter under practical difficulties to deny this legal right. Once the information is held by the public authority it cannot be denied except under sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. It is duty of every public officer to provide information held by it if not hit by any exception under RTI Act. The Commission directed the office of Minister for Textiles (Ms. Smriti Zubin Irani) and the Holy Child Auxilium School, Delhi to provide the roll number or reference number of Ms. Smriti Zubin Irani to CBSE, Ajmer, which possess the records for the years 1991 and 1993 to facilitate search from huge records which is yet to be digitized. However, the defence under section 8(1)(j) could be available to deny copies of 'admit card' and 'marks sheet', if they contain certain personal details of the student unrelated to public activity of education, disclosure of which might cause unwarranted invasion of privacy.
45	CIC/SA/A/2016/001452 (63.87 KB)	04 Jan, 2017	Meenakshi vs DDE (Central) Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The appellant filed criminal case under section 498A IPC against her husband, who happened to be PIO in this case. The Commission held that if the marriage is not annulled as prayed by husband, the appellant would be entitled to family pension or pension in her capacity as heir. If the marriage is annulled, the nomination information does not matter for either of the parties. As long as she continues to be his wife, she has a rightful interest in knowing the nomination; that public interest is larger than the interest of the employee who is objecting disclosure. In this case, marriage of appellant-wife is still subsisting as on the date of hearing, hence there existed public interest and thus she has a right to know about the nominee. The moment marriage is annulled the appellant will not be entitled to know the same because such public interest gets exhausted. As a wife, appellant has a rightful interest to protect for which she is entitled to know the name of the nominee, disclosure of which will not cause any unwarranted invasion of privacy, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the Commission directed the public authority to furnish the name of the nominee by the third party, i.e., the husband of appellant.

31

CIC/BS/A/2016/900115
(58.40 KB) pdf icon

30 Mar, 2017

Mr. Yugandhar Reddy Kadiveti Vs. Central Public Information Officer Asstt. GM (Admn./Mktg.) BSNL, Kadapa.

The appellant filed RTI application dated 09.03.2015 seeking information on 5 points regarding LTC availed by Sri M Eswara Reddy, DE (Rtd.) BSNL. CPIO stated that “information sought by him is related to third party information, the disclosure of which may cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of third person and it is also not associated with any public activity or interest. The same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005”. CIC upheld the decision of CPIO.

32

CIC/BS/A/2016/001713 CIC/BS/A/2016/000503
(99.16 KB) pdf icon

30 Mar, 2017

Shri P Raghvendra Rao Vs. Central Public Information Officer, Joint GM, BSNL, West Godavari, A.P.

The appellant filed RTI application dated 7.7.2015 seeking information regarding status of compassionate appointment in case of Shri P. Venkata Subbacharyulu (Late) Line-Man, BSNL. Sriparru. The respondent stated that vide letter dated 13.7.2015 they had denied the information to the appellant u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as the matter relates to a third party. CIC upheld the decision.

33

CIC/SA/A/2015/001712/MP
(28.18 KB) pdf icon

29 Mar, 2017

Shri Dharamveer, Vs. Sikkim Manipal University

Shri Dharamveer, the appellant, sought authentic copy of BCA degree certificate in case of his wife Smt. Preeti as she had lost her original degree certificate. The Commission holds that the appellant was trying to seek personal information of a third party and the information is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. No larger public interest is involved in the matter.
Section 8(1)(j)

34

CIC/BS/A/2016/001535
(85.75 KB) pdf icon

29 Mar, 2017

Shri Naresh Pal vs Central Public Information Officer, General Manager(HR), BSNL

The appellant filed RTI application dated 19.2.2016 seeking: “1) copy of question letter issued by the DGM(vig.), O/o CGM, BSNL, Haryana Circle, Ambala regarding complaint against the work of “provision of Aluminium partition for AO(TR) & staff room at TE Building Palwal” ; 2) copy of reply submitted by Shri S.K. Batra, the then EE(Civil), Faridabad who was the Engineer-in-charge of the work against the questions issued by the /DGM(Vig) O/o CGM, BSNL, Haryana Circle, Ambala,; etc. The respondent stated that they have denied the information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission is of the view that since the investigation has already been completed, the respondent should provide to the appellant information/ documents to the applicant.

35

CIC/BS/A/2016/000253 CIC/BS/A/2016/000254 CIC/BS/A/2016/000263 CIC/BS/A/2016/000262 CIC/BS/A/2016/000261 CIC/BS/A/2016/000260
(58.32 KB) pdf icon

29 Mar, 2017

Pramod Kumar, Vaishali, Bihar Vs. Central Public Information Officer Supdt., Deptt. Of Posts

CIC observed that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6362 of 2013 Union Public Service Commission Vs. Gourhari Kamila decision 06- 08-2013 has observed that the education and experience certificates are personal information. Hence, education qualification and name of school etc. cannot be provided to the appellant, being personal information. No larger public interest has been claimed by the appellant.

36

CIC/YA/A/2016/001354
(49.06 KB) pdf icon

23 Feb, 2017

Shaikh Mohammed Khalid vs Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that the suspension notice/order, Departmental Enquiry is personal information and is a matter between the employee and the employer, thus, such information cannot be disclosed unless larger public interest involved.

37

CIC/SH/A/2016/00208 CIC/SH/A/2016/00825 CIC/SH/A/2016/000826 CIC/SH/C/2016/000138
(210.74 KB) pdf icon

20 Feb, 2017

Narvdeshwar Prasad Sinha vs IDBI Bank Limited, Mumbai

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that while information can be provided regarding the stations of postings of an officer and his/her tenure at each place, the information regarding the requests for transfer of officials often contains information regarding their family circumstances and illness etc., which is their personal information, exempted from disclosure u/s of the RTI Act. No ground to direct disclosure of information.

38

CIC/SH/A/2015/002235
(148.61 KB) pdf icon

15 Feb, 2017

Vijay N Hiremath vs Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, Belgaum

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that the information cannot be regarded as the personal information of an employee of the public authority, therefore, section 8(1)(j) is not applicable in this case. Further, section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act is also not applicable as the disclosure of the information will not result in breach of any fiduciary relationship. The attendance record of a public servant should be a matter of public record, therefore, we see no ground for denial of the information sought by the Appellant.

39

CIC/SH/A/2015/001900
(132.37 KB) pdf icon

31 Jan, 2017

Jitendra Prasad Singh vs Madhya Bihar Gamin Bank, Patna

Section 8(1) (j) Personal Information. The Commission held that it see no ground to interfere with the decision of the CPIO to deny the information concerning the benefits given to the third party employee under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has not established any larger public interest for disclosure of the information to him. His allegation regarding discrimination in the matter of penionery benefits given to different officials cannot be treated as the ground of larger public interest.

40

CIC/SD/A/2016/000149/SD
(90.79 KB) pdf icon

24 Jan, 2017

Soma Ray vs School of Foreign languages, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(g) Information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person. Section 80) (j). Personal Information. The Commission held that the CPIO has denied the information based on the said exemptions as a blanket provision. The CPIO has failed to specify which particular exemption applies to which query as he has to provide a premise for denying information under the various provisions of sections 8 and/or 9 of the RTI Act. The reliance of the CPIO on sections 8(1)(e) & (h) of the RTI Act is rather misplaced and irrelevant. However, sections 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(g) has been adequately invoked. The same will be covered by the exemption of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as it concerns personal information of third parties, disclosure of which has no apparent larger public interest. The details of question paper setters, evaluators and board of examiners are exempted under section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.

41

CIC/VS/A/2014/003178-BJ
(100.43 KB) pdf icon

18 Jan, 2017

Rajesh Kumar Yadav vs North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur

Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information. The Commission relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v Central Information Commission & Ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012, wherein, it was held that the performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual.

42

CIC/VS/A/2014/003313-BJ
(107.03 KB) pdf icon

18 Jan, 2017

Chandrakanth N. Naik vs CPIO, Konkan Railways Corporations Limited

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that all the information regarding government contracts with the individuals must be made public. However, the personal information of the third party can be exempted from disclosure and severed from the information sought under the provision of section 8(1)(j) read with section 10 of the RTI Act. The respondent is directed to provide a copy of the contract entered by the respondent with S.G Bhat, Proprietor, Hovyak Associates, to the appellant, severing personal details of the third party as per section 10 of the RTI Act.

43

CIC/RM/A/2014/001130
(47.94 KB) pdf icon

17 Jan, 2017

Vijay Prakash Gupta vs CBSE

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The appellant filed RTI application seeking information relating to admission of his son in Ryan International School, Ghaziabad, including certified copies of all mandatory documents submitted, additional documents submitted, additional fees and charges paid by his wife along with other related. The appellant's wife refused to grant permission on ground of third party information. The CPIO denied the information under section 80) (j) of the RTI Act. The Commission upheld the decision of the respondent.

44

CIC/SA/A/2016/000591
(100.29 KB) pdf icon

17 Jan, 2017

Mohd Naushaduddin vs CBSE, Ajmer

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that the RTI Act does not allow the CPIO to take shelter under practical difficulties to deny this legal right. Once the information is held by the public authority it cannot be denied except under sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. It is duty of every public officer to provide information held by it if not hit by any exception under RTI Act.

The Commission directed the office of Minister for Textiles (Ms. Smriti Zubin Irani) and the Holy Child Auxilium School, Delhi to provide the roll number or reference number of Ms. Smriti Zubin Irani to CBSE, Ajmer, which possess the records for the years 1991 and 1993 to facilitate search from huge records which is yet to be digitized. However, the defence under section 8(1)(j) could be available to deny copies of 'admit card' and 'marks sheet', if they contain certain personal details of the student unrelated to public activity of education, disclosure of which might cause unwarranted invasion of privacy.

45

CIC/SA/A/2016/001452
(63.87 KB) pdf icon

04 Jan, 2017

Meenakshi vs DDE (Central)

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The appellant filed criminal case under section 498A IPC against her husband, who happened to be PIO in this case. The Commission held that if the marriage is not annulled as prayed by husband, the appellant would be entitled to family pension or pension in her capacity as heir. If the marriage is annulled, the nomination information does not matter for either of the parties. As long as she continues to be his wife, she has a rightful interest in knowing the nomination; that public interest is larger than the interest of the employee who is objecting disclosure. In this case, marriage of appellant-wife is still subsisting as on the date of hearing, hence there existed public interest and thus she has a right to know about the nominee. The moment marriage is annulled the appellant will not be entitled to know the same because such public interest gets exhausted. As a wife, appellant has a rightful interest to protect for which she is entitled to know the name of the nominee, disclosure of which will not cause any unwarranted invasion of privacy, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the Commission directed the public authority to furnish the name of the nominee by the third party, i.e., the husband of appellant.