welcome to Personal Information | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
61	CIC/RM/A/2014/003059 (94.61 KB)	11 Aug, 2016	Vinay Kumar Vs. Sainik School Ghorakhal, Uttarakhand Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship — Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information — the Commission held that the CPIO denied disclosure of the answer scripts and question booklet of the Appellant's son under the exemption clauses of Section 8 without any reasonable application of his mind. The Appellant in this case is seeking Information regarding his own son who is a minor, in the capacity of his legal natural guardian. The CPIO should have provided the information as sought.
62	CIC/BS/A/2015/901101/10981 (53.36 KB)	03 Aug, 2016	Suhas Lakhande Vs. EPFO, Pune Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information the Commission held that accounts of subscribers maintained by EPFO are held under fiduciary relationship and information relating to such accounts is personal in nature and exempt from disclosure to third party under sections 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act unless the seeker of information is able to show larger public interest to justify the disclosure.
63	CIC/SS/A/2013/002542-YA CIC/SS/A/2013/002541-YA CIC/LS/C/2013/000099-YA CIC/LS/C/2013/000090-YA CIC/LS/A/2012/001255-YA CIC/YA/C/2016/000104-YA CIC/SS/C/2014/000017-YA (96.08 KB)	29 Jul, 2016	Rama Krishna vs Visvesvarya Iron & Steel Plant Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information The Commission held that the contention of CPIO to be misplaced. The details of official tours do not constitute personal information of an individual. Name of a touring officer, purpose of tour and lodging bills issued does not constitute personal information. However, details of itinerary, meals & other personalized services availed do come under the purview of personal information thereby attracting exemption section 8(1) (j) of the Act.
64	CIC/SH/A/2015/000712 (210.54 KB)	25 Jul, 2016	Diliþ Kumar Mandal Vs. Bihar Gramin Bank, Bihad Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information The Commission held that there is no ground to interfere with their decision to deny the information. However, in case the Appellant provides them the details of the correct account, in which his father in law is the guarantor, and also submits a written authorisation from his father in law, authorising him (the Appellant) to get the information on his behalf from the bank, the Respondents should provide the information to him.
65	CIC/CC/A/2014/002226-SA (519.84 KB)	22 Jul, 2016	Bhramanand Mishra vs KVS, Lucknow Section 8(1) (j) Personal Information The Commission held that the disciplinary action against a teacher for corporal punishment as personal and third party information is not justified. The teacher and the school also shall be liable to pay compensation to the injured child according to law. The Commission directed the RVS, headquarters and regional directors to voluntarily disclose whether they have framed policy as advised by the NCPCR to eliminate the corporal punishment in their schools, details of incidents of corporal punishments and action taken against liable teachers, compensation to be paid and amount of compensation paid to the victims etc, every year, beginning with 201516, within three months. The public authority is directed to collect details of teachers punished for corporal assaults on children. The Commission directed the KVS headquarters to circulate copy of this order to all schools and regional offices.
66	CIC/RM/A/2014/00178/SD (143.76 KB)	22 Jul, 2016	Nathu Dada Gahin vs Western Nava/ Command, Mumbai Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information The Appellant sought the copies of property return from 01 /01 /2000 to 31/12/2013 submitted by a particular public servant. The Appellant stated that DoPT 0M No 11013/3/2011 dated Il April 2011 stipulates that Rule 18(1) (ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules provides for submission of Annual property returns in respect of immovable property by all Group 'A' and 'B' officers by 31st January of each year and the same should be placed in public domain by respective cadre controlling authorities. The Commission held that there is no overriding public interest which would warrant disclosure of immovable property of a public servant and such disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual and is exempt under section8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
67	CIC/SH/A/2015/000904 (219.92 KB)	13 Jul, 2016	M. Venugopala Chary Vs. Canara Bank, Hyderabad Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information The Commission held that the information sought at point No. I is regarding departmental proceedings conducted by the bank against its officials. Such information is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. At points No. 2 and 3, the Appellant has sought copies of the concurrent audit reports and periodical returns of the branch. These documents would contain a good deal of information concerning the customers of the bank, which is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) and, in the case of individual account holders, also under section 8(1) (j). The Appellant has not established any larger public interest for disclosure of the information to him. The pending prosecution against him cannot become the ground of larger public interest.
68	CIC/MP/A/2016/000304 (88.78 KB)	05 Jul, 2016	Akash Madhukar Pate vs Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The appellant submitted RTI application before the CPIO, Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai seeking information in respect of transferees and tenement/chawl numbers pertaining to tenements/chawls situated at New Vallabh Nagar, Borivali (West), Mumbai in respect of which tenancies had been transferred by LIC of India since its taking possession of the said tenements/chawls from M/S Asian Assurance Co. Ltd., till 31st March, 2015. The Commission accepted the submissions of the respondents and held that the information as sought by the appellant pertained to third party and could not be provided to the appellant under the provisions of Sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, the disclosure of which warrants no larger public activity or interest.
69	CIC/VS/A/2014/000982/BJ (336.61 KB)	30 Jun, 2016	Chhoti Bitiya vs North Eastern Railways Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information The Commission held that considering the larger public interest to bring about transparency in the selection process. The Commission observes that the results sought by the appellant should be placed on the website forthwith but not later than 15 days of the date of receipt of this order. It is a sensitive and critical matter which impacts the lives of the applicants who need to be aware of the results of the examination. As regards the disclosure of ACRs and Seniority status, the Commission observed that no intervention is required against the actions taken by the concerned public authority.
70	CIC/BS/A/2015/000842/10692 (72.43 KB)	29 Jun, 2016	P D Raphael vs Department of Posts, Thrissur 8(1)(j) Personal Information The appellant stated that he wanted information relating to four registered letters mentioned in his RTI application. The Commission held that the appellant has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought is for larger public purpose, hence, there is no need to interfere with the respondent's decision.
71	CIC/SH/C/2015/000065 (319.13 KB)	10 Jun, 2016	Sujeet Kumar Singh vs UCO Bank, Ranchi Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information The complainant filed RTI application and sought information regarding appointment, postings profile, education certificates, police verification report of an employee of the bank and related issues. The Commission held that a good deal of information sought in the RTI application is the personal information of the employee concerned and is exempted from disclosure u/ s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, in the absence of a finding of larger public interest. The Complainant has not established any larger public interest. Information on some points of the RTI application could have been disclosed. However, since this is a complaint registered under section 18 of the RTI Act, we are not going into the aspect of furnishing of information. We are not in a position to give a direction for furnishing of information in this case in view of the observations of the High Court of Delhi that such a power can only be exercised when a Second Appeal in terms of subsection (3) of section 19 is preferred before the Commissioner.
72	CIC/MP/A/2016/000033 (101.72 KB)	10 Jun, 2016	Sandeep Kumar vs State Bank of Patiala, Amritsar Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. Sexual Harassment of Woman at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act, 2013. Section 16 Denying of Information. The appellant submitted an RTI application before the CPIO, State Bank of Patiala (SBP), Amritsar seeking certified copy of Enquiry Committee report on the sexual harassment at workplace against him by a lady sub staff posted in the same branch. The Commission held that the contents of the enquiry report had been provided to the appellant. Moreover, as per section 16 of Sexual Harassment of Woman at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act, 2013 stipulate "notwithstanding anything contained in the RTI Act, 2005, the contents of the complaint made under section 9, the identity and address of the aggrieved woman, respondent and witnesses, any information relating to conciliation and inquiry proceedings, recommendations of the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, and the action taken by the employer or the District Officer under the provisions of this Act shall not be published, communicated or made known to the public, press and media in any manner.
73	CIC/SM/A/2012/001062 (166.24 KB)	09 Jun, 2016	Arun Kumar Agrawal vs Securities & Exchange Board of India, Mumbai Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information The appellant filed RTI application before the CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai seeking (a) the assets and liabilities statement of Chairman, SEBI for the last three years, or for the period declared by him; and (b) the total present emoluments of Chairman, SEBI along with perquisites on which he has been employed with SEBI. The Full Bench of the Commission held that the appellant in the instant case has not made a bona fide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information is likely to cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Appeal dismissed.
74	CIC/MP/A/2016/000164 (47.01 KB)	06 Jun, 2016	Ashwani Kumar vs Punjab National Bank, New Delhi Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information The Commission held that the valuation of properties would entail commercial confidence and third party information which is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(d) and (j) of the RTI Act. Besides, no larger public interest was involved in disclosure of the information sought by the appellant.
75	CIC/VS/A/2015/000835/SB CIC/VS/A/2015/000923/SB CIC/VS/A/2015/001414/SB (347.35 KB)	06 Jun, 2016	Naveen Kumar Hazari vs O/o Custodian of Enemy Property for India, Mumbai Section 8(1) (j) Personal Information The Commission held that the entire information sought by the appellant on seventeen points does not fall within the ambit of personal information and hence, the respondent cannot take a blanket plea that the entire information cannot be disclosed as per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission, directed the respondent to provide information on point nos. 1 to 3, 4 after severing the address of the officials as sought by the appellant as the same is personal information of a third party.

61

CIC/RM/A/2014/003059
(94.61 KB) pdf icon

11 Aug, 2016

Vinay Kumar Vs. Sainik School Ghorakhal, Uttarakhand

Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship — Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information — the Commission held that the CPIO denied disclosure of the answer scripts and question booklet of the Appellant's son under the exemption clauses of Section 8 without any reasonable application of his mind. The Appellant in this case is seeking Information regarding his own son who is a minor, in the capacity of his legal natural guardian. The CPIO should have provided the information as sought.

62

CIC/BS/A/2015/901101/10981
(53.36 KB) pdf icon

03 Aug, 2016

Suhas Lakhande Vs. EPFO, Pune

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information the Commission held that accounts of subscribers maintained by EPFO are held under fiduciary relationship and information relating to such accounts is personal in nature and exempt from disclosure to third party under sections 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act unless the seeker of information is able to show larger public interest to justify the disclosure.

63

CIC/SS/A/2013/002542-YA CIC/SS/A/2013/002541-YA CIC/LS/C/2013/000099-YA CIC/LS/C/2013/000090-YA CIC/LS/A/2012/001255-YA CIC/YA/C/2016/000104-YA CIC/SS/C/2014/000017-YA
(96.08 KB) pdf icon

29 Jul, 2016

Rama Krishna vs Visvesvarya Iron & Steel Plant

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information

The Commission held that the contention of CPIO to be misplaced. The details of official tours do not constitute personal information of an individual. Name of a touring officer, purpose of tour and lodging bills issued does not constitute personal information.

However, details of itinerary, meals & other personalized services availed do come under the purview of personal information thereby attracting exemption section 8(1) (j) of the Act.

64

CIC/SH/A/2015/000712
(210.54 KB) pdf icon

25 Jul, 2016

Diliþ Kumar Mandal Vs. Bihar Gramin Bank, Bihad

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information

The Commission held that there is no ground to interfere with their decision to deny the information. However, in case the Appellant provides them the details of the correct account, in which his father in law is the guarantor, and also submits a written authorisation from his father in law, authorising him (the Appellant) to get the information on his behalf from the bank, the Respondents should provide the information to him.

65

CIC/CC/A/2014/002226-SA
(519.84 KB) pdf icon

22 Jul, 2016

Bhramanand Mishra vs KVS, Lucknow

Section 8(1) (j) Personal Information

The Commission held that the disciplinary action against a teacher for corporal punishment as personal and third party information is not justified. The teacher and the school also shall be liable to pay compensation to the injured child according to law.

The Commission directed the RVS, headquarters and regional directors to voluntarily disclose whether they have framed policy as advised by the NCPCR to eliminate the corporal punishment in their schools, details of incidents of corporal punishments and action taken against liable teachers, compensation to be paid and amount of compensation paid to the victims etc, every year, beginning with 201516, within three months. The public authority is directed to collect details of teachers punished for corporal assaults on children. The Commission directed the KVS headquarters to circulate copy of this order to all schools and regional offices.

66

CIC/RM/A/2014/00178/SD
(143.76 KB) pdf icon

22 Jul, 2016

Nathu Dada Gahin vs Western Nava/ Command, Mumbai

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information

The Appellant sought the copies of property return from 01 /01 /2000 to 31/12/2013 submitted by a particular public servant. The Appellant stated that DoPT 0M No 11013/3/2011 dated Il April 2011 stipulates that Rule 18(1) (ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules provides for submission of Annual property returns in respect of immovable property by all Group 'A' and 'B' officers by 31st January of each year and the same should be placed in public domain by respective cadre controlling authorities.

The Commission held that there is no overriding public interest which would warrant disclosure of immovable property of a public servant and such disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual and is exempt under section8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

67

CIC/SH/A/2015/000904
(219.92 KB) pdf icon

13 Jul, 2016

M. Venugopala Chary Vs. Canara Bank, Hyderabad

Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information

The Commission held that the information sought at point No. I is regarding departmental proceedings conducted by the bank against its officials. Such information is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. At points No. 2 and 3, the Appellant has sought copies of the concurrent audit reports and periodical returns of the branch. These documents would contain a good deal of information concerning the customers of the bank, which is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) and, in the case of individual account holders, also under section 8(1) (j). The Appellant has not established any larger public interest for disclosure of the information to him. The pending prosecution against him cannot become the ground of larger public interest.

68

CIC/MP/A/2016/000304
(88.78 KB) pdf icon

05 Jul, 2016

Akash Madhukar Pate vs Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information.

The appellant submitted RTI application before the CPIO, Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai seeking information in respect of transferees and tenement/chawl numbers pertaining to tenements/chawls situated at New Vallabh Nagar, Borivali (West), Mumbai in respect of which tenancies had been transferred by LIC of India since its taking possession of the said tenements/chawls from M/S Asian Assurance Co. Ltd., till 31st March, 2015.

The Commission accepted the submissions of the respondents and held that the information as sought by the appellant pertained to third party and could not be provided to the appellant under the provisions of Sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, the disclosure of which warrants no larger public activity or interest.

69

CIC/VS/A/2014/000982/BJ
(336.61 KB) pdf icon

30 Jun, 2016

Chhoti Bitiya vs North Eastern Railways

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information

The Commission held that considering the larger public interest to bring about transparency in the selection process.
The Commission observes that the results sought by the appellant should be placed on the website forthwith but not later than 15 days of the date of receipt of this order. It is a sensitive and critical matter which impacts the lives of the applicants who need to be aware of the results of the examination. As regards the disclosure of ACRs and Seniority status, the Commission observed that no intervention is required against the actions taken by the concerned public authority.

70

CIC/BS/A/2015/000842/10692
(72.43 KB) pdf icon

29 Jun, 2016

P D Raphael vs Department of Posts, Thrissur

8(1)(j) Personal Information

The appellant stated that he wanted information relating to four registered letters mentioned in his RTI application.
The Commission held that the appellant has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought is for larger public purpose, hence, there is no need to interfere with the respondent's decision.

71

CIC/SH/C/2015/000065
(319.13 KB) pdf icon

10 Jun, 2016

Sujeet Kumar Singh vs UCO Bank, Ranchi

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information

The complainant filed RTI application and sought information regarding appointment, postings profile, education certificates, police verification report of an employee of the bank and related issues.

The Commission held that a good deal of information sought in the RTI application is the personal information of the employee concerned and is exempted from disclosure u/ s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, in the absence of a finding of larger public interest. The Complainant has not established any larger public interest. Information on some points of the RTI application could have been disclosed. However, since this is a complaint registered under section 18 of the RTI Act, we are not going into the aspect of furnishing of information. We are not in a position to give a direction for furnishing of information in this case in view of the observations of the High Court of Delhi that such a power can only be exercised when a Second Appeal in terms of subsection (3) of section 19 is preferred before the Commissioner.

72

CIC/MP/A/2016/000033
(101.72 KB) pdf icon

10 Jun, 2016

Sandeep Kumar vs State Bank of Patiala, Amritsar

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information.

Sexual Harassment of Woman at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act, 2013. Section 16 Denying of Information. The appellant submitted an RTI application before the CPIO, State Bank of Patiala (SBP), Amritsar seeking certified copy of Enquiry Committee report on the sexual harassment at workplace against him by a lady sub staff posted in the same branch.

The Commission held that the contents of the enquiry report had been provided to the appellant. Moreover, as per section 16 of Sexual Harassment of Woman at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act, 2013 stipulate "notwithstanding anything contained in the RTI Act, 2005, the contents of the complaint made under section 9, the identity and address of the aggrieved woman, respondent and witnesses, any information relating to conciliation and inquiry proceedings, recommendations of the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, and the action taken by the employer or the District Officer under the provisions of this Act shall not be published, communicated or made known to the public, press and media in any manner.

73

CIC/SM/A/2012/001062
(166.24 KB) pdf icon

09 Jun, 2016

Arun Kumar Agrawal vs Securities & Exchange Board of India, Mumbai

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information

The appellant filed RTI application before the CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai seeking (a) the assets and liabilities statement of Chairman, SEBI for the last three years, or for the period declared by him; and (b) the total present emoluments of Chairman, SEBI along with perquisites on which he has been employed with SEBI.

The Full Bench of the Commission held that the appellant in the instant case has not made a bona fide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information is likely to cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Appeal dismissed.

74

CIC/MP/A/2016/000164
(47.01 KB) pdf icon

06 Jun, 2016

Ashwani Kumar vs Punjab National Bank, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information

The Commission held that the valuation of properties would entail commercial confidence and third party information which is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(d) and (j) of the RTI Act. Besides, no larger public interest was involved in disclosure of the information sought by the appellant.

75

CIC/VS/A/2015/000835/SB CIC/VS/A/2015/000923/SB CIC/VS/A/2015/001414/SB
(347.35 KB) pdf icon

06 Jun, 2016

Naveen Kumar Hazari vs O/o Custodian of Enemy Property for India, Mumbai

Section 8(1) (j) Personal Information

The Commission held that the entire information sought by the appellant on seventeen points does not fall within the ambit of personal information and hence, the respondent cannot take a blanket plea that the entire information cannot be disclosed as per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

The Commission, directed the respondent to provide information on point nos. 1 to 3, 4 after severing the address of the officials as sought by the appellant as the same is personal information of a third party.