welcome to Personal Information | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
46	CIC/SB/A/2015/000516 (57.99 KB)	20 Dec, 2016	Amit Mahalwal vs Delhi Police, Delhi & Ann Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that the denial of information regarding duty roster and details about the leave of public servant, except the reasons for leave, is not a personal information and further the same relates to public activity/interest. Hence, the information sought on point nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI application is not exempted under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
47	CIC/MP/A/2016/001458 (40.31 KB)	14 Dec, 2016	Nitin Dange vs Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The CPIO denied the information under the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act being personal information of third party, however, provided the date of retirement and name of PIO and his designation and the PIO's employee ID was denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission held that information permissible under the RTI Act had been provided by the CPIO and personal information related to third party cannot be provided under the provisions of sections 8(I)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, the disclosure of which had no relationship to any public interest or activity. The Commission upheld the decision of the FAA.
48	CIC/CC/A/2014/000666 (124.36 KB)	14 Dec, 2016	Rajesh Madhukant vs Hemwati Nandan Bhanguna Garhwal University Section 8(1) (j) Personal Information. Whether degree related information of a particular student is his or her personal information or third party information, and whether such information was given to University in fiduciary capacity, as contented by public authority? The Commission held that once a student passes an examination and qualifies to secure a degree, the degree and passing details cannot be treated as private or third party information. Passing an examination is a qualification and awarding the degree such as 10th Class, 12th Class or Intermediate, graduation or post graduation, is a public activity and that certificate is a public document generated by a public institution. The academic institutions awarding such degrees under a statutory authority are discharging their statutory duties such as registering the qualification details and degree related information. Hence, the degree or academic qualification related information need to be accessible to the citizen.
49	CIC/SB/A/2015/000433 (57.73 KB)	02 Dec, 2016	Syed Sajad Ali vs Delhi Police, Delhi Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that the information is sought about the presence of a public servant on certain dates and timing of duty. The Commission observed that every public servant while on duty is involved in a public activity, hence, any information pertaining to the presence or absence of a public servant from duty is related to public interest. Information pertaining to the attendance of a public servant cannot be withheld. The Commission, therefore, directed the respondent to provide the information sought by the appellant.
50	CIC/CC/A/2014/000643-SA (76.52 KB)	23 Nov, 2016	Mamta Srivastapa vs Information and Library Network Centre Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information Publication of the thesis. The Commission held that 'The Shodhganga INFLIBNET' is not private body, but a public authority working with the object of spreading the knowledge through keeping research results and thesis approved as the official website to facilitate access for all, which will enhance further research. The Ph.D. reports are results of joint efforts of research scholar and university, and respondent authority being public authority has every authority to publish the thesis, to advance access to knowledge and further research.
51	CIC/VS/A/2015/000501 (80.41 KB)	11 Nov, 2016	Mr. Bhushan Sharma Vs CPIO, South Central Railway The appellant filed RTI application seeking photo copy of his answer booklet, photo copy of the question booklet of the candidate who has secured 33.35% marks, copy of final merit list. The respondent is directed to provide the complete merit list along with marks of all candidates. The respondent should also provide to the appellant his question booklet in Hindi, along with copy of key answer sheet.
52	CIC/VS/A/2015/003344/SD (69.12 KB)	31 Oct, 2016	Amar Kumar Jha vs CPIO, Station Headquarter, Agartala Section 8(1) (j) Personal Information. The Commission held that it is fully aware that an applicant does not require to give any citizenship proof for seeking information under RTI Act but the facts of the present matter compel the Commission to ascertain the identity of the Appellant since he is asking for information of such nature which if proven otherwise will pertain to a third party. The Commission also makes a serious note of the fact that the Appellant failed to show any kind of identity proof when asked for aiding his case during the hearing. The Commission directed the CPIO to provide inspection of relevant and available records of the information sought in the RTI Application to the Appellant, however, the CPIO is not obliged to provide the said inspection if the Appellant while appearing for this purpose at the Station Headquarter, Agartala fails to show his identity proof to fully establish that he is the same as the person with respect to whom the information is being sought.
53	CIC/MP/C/2016/000106 (37.90 KB)	28 Oct, 2016	Hemant Singhal vs India Security Press, Nashik Road Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission cautions the CPIO for providing a cryptic response to the complainant without giving justification on the exemptions claimed under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission observes that the information as sought by the complainant pertained to third parties and cannot be provided under the provisions of Sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.
54	CIC/MP/A/2016/000850 (32.86 KB)	27 Oct, 2016	J. Aggarwal vs Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh The Commission held that the information sought relates to pensioners and is third party information held by the bank in its fiduciary capacity, therefore, is not disclosable u/s 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The public authority is also not obligated to collect or collate non-available information for the appellant's perusal. The Commission upheld the decision of the respondents.
55	CIC/YA/A/2015/002905 (158.97 KB)	25 Oct, 2016	Ashok Kapoor vs CPIO, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that it is of the opinion that denial of information by the earlier CPIO in the facts of the case was wholly incorrect. Firstly, because the information was sought by the owner of the property and moreover sealing/de-sealing of a property on account of unauthorised/illegal activities cannot be termed as third party information because such information is supposed to be put on website of the MCD for public awareness. Thus, it is evident that the erstwhile CPIO had erred in denial of information to the appellant.
56	CIC/SH/A/2015/001582 (198.51 KB)	10 Oct, 2016	Anit Kumar vs Bharat Petroleum Comoration Ltd., New Delhi Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information Disclosure of information concerning caste. Policy of 25% reservation for applicants belonging to scheduled castes. The Commission held that it is true that the information concerning the caste of a person is information of a personal nature, exempted from disclosure under Section 8(l)(j) of the RTI Act. However, in the instant case, it cannot be regarded as personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, particularly since the retail outlets in question have been allocated on the basis of a reservation quota. The CPIO is directed to provide a copy of the list to the Appellant in the interest of transparency.
57	CIC/BS/A/2015/001277/11349 (59.51 KB)	26 Sep, 2016	Laxmi Devi Vs. BSNL, Jaipur Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information — the Commission relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide it decision dated 1/7/2009 [W.P. (C) 803/2009, Vijay Prakash Vs. UOI and Ors.] wherein it was held that in a private dispute, between husband and wife, the basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption from disclosure enacted under section 80) (j) of the RTI Act cannot be lifted or disturbed unless the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in 'public interest'. Seeking such information under the provisions of RTI Act is certainly not an appropriate relief.
58	CIC/SH/A/2015/000382, CIC/SH/A/2015/001270, CIC/SH/A/2015/001625, CIC/SH/A/2015/001178, CIC/SH/A/2015/001259, CIC/SH/A/2015/001269 (180.20 KB)	06 Sep, 2016	Shri Kundan Shrawan Humane Vs. CPIO Dena Bank Application Fee - the complaint filed RTI application seeking information regarding action taken by the bank against some of its officials with regard to cases of fraud etc. and certain regulations of the bank. The CPIO asked him to send the original receipt for necessary action on the application - the Commission upheld the decision of the CPIO to insist on the original receipt in respect of RTI application fee. This is essential to avoid an applicant using copies of the same receipt to file more than one application. Section 6(1) and 8(1)(j)
59	CIC/CC/A/2015/002488-SA (53.94 KB)	05 Sep, 2016	Rajni Goyal Vs. Deptt. of Trade & Taxes Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information — the Commission held that the appellant is supposed to be the first party i.e. lessor and as Mr. Ashok Kumar is claiming to be lessee, the appellant has every right to have a copy of the same. As the appellant does not have the copy of the alleged rental deed, which is alleged to be a forged document, he should have an opportunity to challenge it. It is in public interest to protect his fights as owner of the godown. First of all, it is not third party information and even if assumed to be so, public interest demands its disclosure. The Commission directed the respondent authority to provide certified copy of the rental deed.
60	CIC/KY/A/2014/000603/SB (30.12 KB)	16 Aug, 2016	R. K. Jain vs Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission, New Delhi Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information The Commission held that the proceedings before the Settlement Commission are of a nature which involves settlement between two parties and certain confessions are made before the Bench. Also, the parties before the Settlement Commission are required to disclose the facts that lead to evasion of duty and to accept the duty liability in the light of the facts disclosed by them. The Settlement Commission after considering the disclosure made by the parties settles the disputes on the basis of acceptance of misdemeanour as well as duty liability by the party. Therefore, in order to ensure confidentiality of voluntary disclosures made by the parties, proceedings and the orders of the Settlement Commission are kept confidential. Disclosing the information as sought by the appellant in point no. A of the RTI application would amount to disclosure of personal information pertaining to a third party, which may cause possible harm or injury to the interests of such party. With regard to information sought in point no. B of the RTI application, wherein, the appellant had sought list of orders passed by the Settlement Commission's Principal Bench at Delhi including the Special Bench decisions, the Commission observed that disclosing such information would not amount to disclosing information of a third party and therefore, there is no prohibition on providing the list of cases as sought by the appellant.

46

CIC/SB/A/2015/000516
(57.99 KB) pdf icon

20 Dec, 2016

Amit Mahalwal vs Delhi Police, Delhi & Ann

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that the denial of information regarding duty roster and details about the leave of public servant, except the reasons for leave, is not a personal information and further the same relates to public activity/interest. Hence, the information sought on point nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI application is not exempted under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

47

CIC/MP/A/2016/001458
(40.31 KB) pdf icon

14 Dec, 2016

Nitin Dange vs Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The CPIO denied the information under the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act being personal information of third party, however, provided the date of retirement and name of PIO and his designation and the PIO's employee ID was denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

The Commission held that information permissible under the RTI Act had been provided by the CPIO and personal information related to third party cannot be provided under the provisions of sections 8(I)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, the disclosure of which had no relationship to any public interest or activity. The Commission upheld the decision of the FAA.

48

CIC/CC/A/2014/000666
(124.36 KB) pdf icon

14 Dec, 2016

Rajesh Madhukant vs Hemwati Nandan Bhanguna Garhwal University

Section 8(1) (j) Personal Information. Whether degree related information of a particular student is his or her personal information or third party information, and whether such information was given to University in fiduciary capacity, as contented by public authority?

The Commission held that once a student passes an examination and qualifies to secure a degree, the degree and passing details cannot be treated as private or third party information. Passing an examination is a qualification and awarding the degree such as 10th Class, 12th Class or Intermediate, graduation or post graduation, is a public activity and that certificate is a public document generated by a public institution. The academic institutions awarding such degrees under a statutory authority are discharging their statutory duties such as registering the qualification details and degree related information. Hence, the degree or academic qualification related information need to be accessible to the citizen.

49

CIC/SB/A/2015/000433
(57.73 KB) pdf icon

02 Dec, 2016

Syed Sajad Ali vs Delhi Police, Delhi

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that the information is sought about the presence of a public servant on certain dates and timing of duty.

The Commission observed that every public servant while on duty is involved in a public activity, hence, any information pertaining to the presence or absence of a public servant from duty is related to public interest. Information pertaining to the attendance of a public servant cannot be withheld. The Commission, therefore, directed the respondent to provide the information sought by the appellant.

50

CIC/CC/A/2014/000643-SA
(76.52 KB) pdf icon

23 Nov, 2016

Mamta Srivastapa vs Information and Library Network Centre

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information

Publication of the thesis. The Commission held that 'The Shodhganga INFLIBNET' is not private body, but a public authority working with the object of spreading the knowledge through keeping research results and thesis approved as the official website to facilitate access for all, which will enhance further research. The Ph.D. reports are results of joint efforts of research scholar and university, and respondent authority being public authority has every authority to publish the thesis, to advance access to knowledge and further research.

51

CIC/VS/A/2015/000501
(80.41 KB) pdf icon

11 Nov, 2016

Mr. Bhushan Sharma Vs CPIO, South Central Railway

The appellant filed RTI application seeking photo copy of his answer booklet, photo copy of the question booklet of the candidate who has secured 33.35% marks, copy of final merit list. The respondent is directed to provide the complete merit list along with marks of all candidates. The respondent should also provide to the appellant his question booklet in Hindi, along with copy of key answer sheet.

52

CIC/VS/A/2015/003344/SD
(69.12 KB) pdf icon

31 Oct, 2016

Amar Kumar Jha vs CPIO, Station Headquarter, Agartala

Section 8(1) (j) Personal Information.

The Commission held that it is fully aware that an applicant does not require to give any citizenship proof for seeking information under RTI Act but the facts of the present matter compel the Commission to ascertain the identity of the Appellant since he is asking for information of such nature which if proven otherwise will pertain to a third party. The Commission also makes a serious note of the fact that the Appellant failed to show any kind of identity proof when asked for aiding his case during the hearing.

The Commission directed the CPIO to provide inspection of relevant and available records of the information sought in the RTI Application to the Appellant, however, the CPIO is not obliged to provide the said inspection if the Appellant while appearing for this purpose at the Station Headquarter, Agartala fails to show his identity proof to fully establish that he is the same as the person with respect to whom the information is being sought.

53

CIC/MP/C/2016/000106
(37.90 KB) pdf icon

28 Oct, 2016

Hemant Singhal vs India Security Press, Nashik Road

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information.
The Commission cautions the CPIO for providing a cryptic response to the complainant without giving justification on the exemptions claimed under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.

The Commission observes that the information as sought by the complainant pertained to third parties and cannot be provided under the provisions of Sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.

54

CIC/MP/A/2016/000850
(32.86 KB) pdf icon

27 Oct, 2016

J. Aggarwal vs Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh

The Commission held that the information sought relates to pensioners and is third party information held by the bank in its fiduciary capacity, therefore, is not disclosable u/s 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The public authority is also not obligated to collect or collate non-available information for the appellant's perusal. The Commission upheld the decision of the respondents.

55

CIC/YA/A/2015/002905
(158.97 KB) pdf icon

25 Oct, 2016

Ashok Kapoor vs CPIO, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information.

The Commission held that it is of the opinion that denial of information by the earlier CPIO in the facts of the case was wholly incorrect. Firstly, because the information was sought by the owner of the property and moreover sealing/de-sealing of a property on account of unauthorised/illegal activities cannot be termed as third party information because such information is supposed to be put on website of the MCD for public awareness. Thus, it is evident that the erstwhile CPIO had erred in denial of information to the appellant.

56

CIC/SH/A/2015/001582
(198.51 KB) pdf icon

10 Oct, 2016

Anit Kumar vs Bharat Petroleum Comoration Ltd., New Delhi

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information

Disclosure of information concerning caste. Policy of 25% reservation for applicants belonging to scheduled castes. The Commission held that it is true that the information concerning the caste of a person is information of a personal nature, exempted from disclosure under Section 8(l)(j) of the RTI Act.
However, in the instant case, it cannot be regarded as personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, particularly since the retail outlets in question have been allocated on the basis of a reservation quota. The CPIO is directed to provide a copy of the list to the Appellant in the interest of transparency.

57

CIC/BS/A/2015/001277/11349
(59.51 KB) pdf icon

26 Sep, 2016

Laxmi Devi Vs. BSNL, Jaipur

Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information — the Commission relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide it decision dated 1/7/2009 [W.P. (C) 803/2009, Vijay Prakash Vs. UOI and Ors.] wherein it was held that in a private dispute, between husband and wife, the basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption from disclosure enacted under section 80) (j) of the RTI Act cannot be lifted or disturbed unless the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in 'public interest'. Seeking such information under the provisions of RTI Act is certainly not an appropriate relief.

58

CIC/SH/A/2015/000382, CIC/SH/A/2015/001270, CIC/SH/A/2015/001625, CIC/SH/A/2015/001178, CIC/SH/A/2015/001259, CIC/SH/A/2015/001269
(180.20 KB) pdf icon

06 Sep, 2016

Shri Kundan Shrawan Humane Vs. CPIO Dena Bank

Application Fee - the complaint filed RTI application seeking information regarding action taken by the bank against some of its officials with regard to cases of fraud etc. and certain regulations of the bank. The CPIO asked him to send the original receipt for necessary action on the application - the Commission upheld the decision of the CPIO to insist on the original receipt in respect of RTI application fee. This is essential to avoid an applicant using copies of the same receipt to file more than one application. Section 6(1) and 8(1)(j)

59

CIC/CC/A/2015/002488-SA
(53.94 KB) pdf icon

05 Sep, 2016

Rajni Goyal Vs. Deptt. of Trade & Taxes

Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information — the Commission held that the appellant is supposed to be the first party i.e. lessor and as Mr. Ashok Kumar is claiming to be lessee, the appellant has every right to have a copy of the same. As the appellant does not have the copy of the alleged rental deed, which is alleged to be a forged document, he should have an opportunity to challenge it. It is in public interest to protect his fights as owner of the godown. First of all, it is not third party information and even if assumed to be so, public interest demands its disclosure. The Commission directed the respondent authority to provide certified copy of the rental deed.

60

CIC/KY/A/2014/000603/SB
(30.12 KB) pdf icon

16 Aug, 2016

R. K. Jain vs Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information

The Commission held that the proceedings before the Settlement Commission are of a nature which involves settlement between two parties and certain confessions are made before the Bench. Also, the parties before the Settlement Commission are required to disclose the facts that lead to evasion of duty and to accept the duty liability in the light of the facts disclosed by them.

The Settlement Commission after considering the disclosure made by the parties settles the disputes on the basis of acceptance of misdemeanour as well as duty liability by the party. Therefore, in order to ensure confidentiality of voluntary disclosures made by the parties, proceedings and the orders of the Settlement Commission are kept confidential. Disclosing the information as sought by the appellant in point no. A of the RTI application would amount to disclosure of personal information pertaining to a third party, which may cause possible harm or injury to the interests of such party. With regard to information sought in point no. B of the RTI application, wherein, the appellant had sought list of orders passed by the Settlement Commission's Principal Bench at Delhi including the Special Bench decisions, the Commission observed that disclosing such information would not amount to disclosing information of a third party and therefore, there is no prohibition on providing the list of cases as sought by the appellant.