welcome to Personal Information | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
76	CIC/SA/A/2016/000275 (398.26 KB)	03 Jun, 2016	Dharam Pal vs Registrar of Cooperative Societies, GNCTD Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information The Commission held that the allegations against him in his capacity as caretaker of society are very serious; that he himself was responsible for making irregular members out of his own relatives, granting loans to them, making them defaulters, stealing the documents. He is trying to build pressure on Mr. A.K. Verma, by seeking his property reports. This case is a criminal abuse of the RTI Act. The appellant has not come with clean hands and if his petition is entertained such abuse, it will be a mockery of access law. The Commission rejected his application and advised him not to cause waste of time of public authorities including the Commission on this subject.
77	CIC/LS/C/2012/000853-AB (93.19 KB)	26 May, 2016	Pramod Kumar Tomar Vs. Jat Regiment, Bareilly Section 8(1)(j) Personal information The appellant filed RTI application and sought date of appointment of Martyr Late Sh. Anil Tomar, his service records, names of his widow and children and the benefits given to him the Commission held that the army authorities were correct in taking recourse to section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act by not providing this information to the third party, i.e. the appellant.
78	CIC/CC/A/2014/000560/SD (92.25 KB)	23 May, 2016	Shyam Kunvar Vs. Station Headquarters, Delhi Gantt. Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information The Commission observed that the details of house allotees is not exempted under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act because it does not contain any personal information about any individual which would cause unwarranted invasion of his privacy. The Commission directed the CPIO to provide names of allotees of the relevant Government accommodation between 2012-15.
79	CIC/CC/A/2014/002064/BS/10394 (65.88 KB)	23 May, 2016	Poonam Shahani Vs. Income Tax Department, Hamirpur Section 8(1) (j) — Personal Information The Commission held that in such a case the appropriate remedy available to her would be to apply to the Family Court Mumbai for summoning the records of her husband/assesse from the Income Tax department, Hamirpur (HP) but seeking such information under the provisions of RTI Act is certainly not an appropriate relief.
80	CIC/SH/A/2015/000590 & CIC/SH/A/2015/002108 (216.50 KB)	23 May, 2016	Louis Lobo Vs. Vijaya Bank, Bangalore Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information The Commission held that the information sought by the Appellant is exempted from disclosure under section 8(l)(j) of the RTI Act, as it is the personal information of the officers concerned. The Appellant has not established any larger public interest for its disclosure to him. His belief that he was discriminated against in the matter of being able to opt for a certain pension scheme cannot become the ground of larger public interest.
81	CIC/BS/A/2015/000662/10354 (50.67 KB)	18 May, 2016	Kirpal Singh Matharu Vs. Department of Post, Faridkot Section 8(l)(j) — Personal Information The Commission held that documents submitted by candidates in connection with their employment like caste certificate, marks sheet etc. being information of personal nature, cannot be disclosed unless the petitioner is able to establish larger public purpose. The appellant has also not availed the opportunity to appear before the Commission and demonstrate that the disclosure of the information asked for by him is in larger public interest.
82	CIC/RM/A/2014/000535DP (94.98 KB)	26 Apr, 2016	Manisha Bhaskar Ahluwalia vs IHQ of MOD (Army), New Delhi Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information The Commission held that the details of moveable and immoveable property of Supreme Court Judges is available on the website of the Apex Court. Conduct Rules for top Government officials belonging to All India Services and Central Services stipulates annual submission of details of immoveable property which is put on the official .website of the department. The CPIO cannot reject the request of the appellant for information on moveable and immovable property of her husband being third party information under section 11(1) and personal information under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The Appellant is asking for information under RTI for fighting maintenance case for herself and her minor daughter in Civil Court. It will not be justified to deny her the information by keeping it under the exemption clause of the RTI Act. If justice is denied to the appellant it would not only harm her interests but society at large, In larger public interest disclosure of information is ordered.
83	CIC/MP/A/2015/001953 (87.94 KB)	18 Apr, 2016	Rishi Kumar Rai vs Life Insurance Corporation of India Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information The CPIO denied the information to the appellant under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, since the appellant was neither a nominee nor beneficiary in the policy. The Commission held that the decision of the respondents is in conformity with the provisions of the law and thus does not call for any intervention by the Commission. The decision of the respondents is upheld.
84	CIC/VS/A/2014/003170/SB CIC/VS/C/2014/000422/SB (528.87 KB)	31 Mar, 2016	Seema Chandra vs Central Reserve Police Force, Assam Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that in the present case the appellant is seeking pay slip etc. of her husband, the same would not qualify to be personal information of third party. The Commission directed the respondent to provide information as sought by the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
85	CIC/SH/A/2015/000235 (216.66 KB)	30 Mar, 2016	Puspanjali Padhy vs Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai Section 8(1) (j) Personal Information. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 Section 13 Inquiry Report. The Commission held that the CPIO advised the Appellant to follow section 13 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 to get the information needed by her, he ignored section 13(1), which requires the employer to make the report available to the concerned parties, without requiring those parties to make a demarche in that regard. Because of the above approach adopted by the CPIO, endorsed by the FAA, the Appellant has had to pursue the matter through the RTI route all this while to get the information, thereby undergoing considerable harassment. The Commission under section of the RTI Act, directed the Respondent to pay a token compensation of Rs. 2000/to the Appellant.
86	CIC/BS/A/2015/000425+00464+000465+000466/10071 (56.51 KB)	30 Mar, 2016	Vishal Keshav vs EPFO, Thane Section 8(1) (j) Personal Information The Commission held that the information relating to PF subscriber maintained by EPFO is held under fiduciary relationship and is personal in nature and exempted 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. Further, the Commission relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its decision dated 01 /07 /2009 [W.P.(C) 803/2009 Vijay Prakash v UOI and Ors.], wherein, it has been clarified that in a private dispute, between husband and wife, the basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption from disclosure enacted under section 8(1) (j) cannot be lifted or disturbed unless the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in 'public interest'.
87	CIC/YA/A/2015/001385/MP (63.03 KB)	28 Mar, 2016	Sushil Chandra Sekhar vs Prasar Bharati, New Delhi Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information The CPIO denied the answer sheets of other candidates while informing the appellant that his name figured at serial no. 2 in the merit list and enclosing his answer sheet. The FAA held that the information sought did not involve any larger public interest and was exempt u/ s 80) (j) of the RTI Act. The Commission upheld the decision of the FAA.
88	CIC/SA/A/2015/001894 (386.03 KB)	16 Mar, 2016	Anita Singh vs Directorate of Health Services, GNCTD Personal Information The Commission held that it is clear that the patients and their relatives are entitled to know the treatment details including names and qualifications /experience of doctors. As per the law, this information had to be given within 72 hours, under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. This falls under the scope of definition of information as per the RTI Act. The lack of responsibility from the respondent authority reflects its utter disregard for the law. The Commission issued show cause notice to the PIO to explain why penalty should not be imposed on him for obstructing the process of giving information to the appellant whose son had died during the treatment in Sri Gangaram Hospital. The Commission also noted that the Public Authority did not care to respond to the hearing notice sent by the Commission. The Commission also directed the PIO to show cause why compensation of Rs. 50,000/- should not be awarded to the appellant.
89	CIC/MP/A/2015/001680 (87.97 KB)	15 Mar, 2016	Basavraj Sharanappa Hagargi vs State Bank of Hyderabad, Gulbarga Section 8(1)(j)-Personal Information The appellant submitted an RTI application before the CPIO, State Bank of Hyderabad, Gulbarga, seeking a copy of the application for agriculture loan and pass book in respect of late Smt. Sangamma pertaining to her account. The Commission held that the information as sought by the appellant related to third party and could not be provided under the provisions of sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act and upheld the decision of the CPIO.
90	CIC/RM/A/2014/004399-YA (71.53 KB)	12 Mar, 2016	Burla Prasad Khammam vs Heavy Water Plant Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information The Commission held that it is not the case of the appellant that a formal chargesheet has been issued to him. The investigation is presently underway and upon conclusion whereof, the Competent authority shall decide as to whether proceedings be initiated against the appellant or not. At present stage, the appellant has no equitable right to seek details of the investigation. Such right would have arisen had the appellant suffered any detriment due to the investigation, which is not the case herein. Yet another facet of the issue is that any revelation of the information sought at this nascent stage of proceedings would unduly fetter upon the prerogative of the investigator. The Commission upheld the decision of the respondent.

76

CIC/SA/A/2016/000275
(398.26 KB) pdf icon

03 Jun, 2016

Dharam Pal vs Registrar of Cooperative Societies, GNCTD

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information

The Commission held that the allegations against him in his capacity as caretaker of society are very serious; that he himself was responsible for making irregular members out of his own relatives, granting loans to them, making them defaulters, stealing the documents. He is trying to build pressure on Mr. A.K. Verma, by seeking his property reports. This case is a criminal abuse of the RTI Act. The appellant has not come with clean hands and if his petition is entertained such abuse, it will be a mockery of access law.

The Commission rejected his application and advised him not to cause waste of time of public authorities including the Commission on this subject.

77

CIC/LS/C/2012/000853-AB
(93.19 KB) pdf icon

26 May, 2016

Pramod Kumar Tomar Vs. Jat Regiment, Bareilly

Section 8(1)(j) Personal information

The appellant filed RTI application and sought date of appointment of Martyr Late Sh. Anil Tomar, his service records, names of his widow and children and the benefits given to him the Commission held that the army authorities were correct in taking recourse to section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act by not providing this information to the third party, i.e. the appellant.

78

CIC/CC/A/2014/000560/SD
(92.25 KB) pdf icon

23 May, 2016

Shyam Kunvar Vs. Station Headquarters, Delhi Gantt.

Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information

The Commission observed that the details of house allotees is not exempted under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act because it does not contain any personal information about any individual which would cause unwarranted invasion of his privacy. The Commission directed the CPIO to provide names of allotees of the relevant Government accommodation between 2012-15.

79

CIC/CC/A/2014/002064/BS/10394
(65.88 KB) pdf icon

23 May, 2016

Poonam Shahani Vs. Income Tax Department, Hamirpur

Section 8(1) (j) — Personal Information

The Commission held that in such a case the appropriate remedy available to her would be to apply to the Family Court Mumbai for summoning the records of her husband/assesse from the Income Tax department, Hamirpur (HP) but seeking such information under the provisions of RTI Act is certainly not an appropriate relief.

80

CIC/SH/A/2015/000590 & CIC/SH/A/2015/002108
(216.50 KB) pdf icon

23 May, 2016

Louis Lobo Vs. Vijaya Bank, Bangalore

Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information

The Commission held that the information sought by the Appellant is exempted from disclosure under section 8(l)(j) of the RTI Act, as it is the personal information of the officers concerned. The Appellant has not established any larger public interest for its disclosure to him. His belief that he was discriminated against in the matter of being able to opt for a certain pension scheme cannot become the ground of larger public interest.

81

CIC/BS/A/2015/000662/10354
(50.67 KB) pdf icon

18 May, 2016

Kirpal Singh Matharu Vs. Department of Post, Faridkot

Section 8(l)(j) — Personal Information

The Commission held that documents submitted by candidates in connection with their employment like caste certificate, marks sheet etc. being information of personal nature, cannot be disclosed unless the petitioner is able to establish larger public purpose. The appellant has also not availed the opportunity to appear before the Commission and demonstrate that the disclosure of the information asked for by him is in larger public interest.

82

CIC/RM/A/2014/000535DP
(94.98 KB) pdf icon

26 Apr, 2016

Manisha Bhaskar Ahluwalia vs IHQ of MOD (Army), New Delhi

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information

The Commission held that the details of moveable and immoveable property of Supreme Court Judges is available on the website of the Apex Court. Conduct Rules for top Government officials belonging to All India Services and Central Services stipulates annual submission of details of immoveable property which is put on the official .website of the department.

The CPIO cannot reject the request of the appellant for information on moveable and immovable property of her husband being third party information under section 11(1) and personal information under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The Appellant is asking for information under RTI for fighting maintenance case for herself and her minor daughter in Civil Court. It will not be justified to deny her the information by keeping it under the exemption clause of the RTI Act. If justice is denied to the appellant it would not only harm her interests but society at large, In larger public interest disclosure of information is ordered.

83

CIC/MP/A/2015/001953
(87.94 KB) pdf icon

18 Apr, 2016

Rishi Kumar Rai vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information

The CPIO denied the information to the appellant under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, since the appellant was neither a nominee nor beneficiary in the policy.

The Commission held that the decision of the respondents is in conformity with the provisions of the law and thus does not call for any intervention by the Commission. The decision of the respondents is upheld.

84

CIC/VS/A/2014/003170/SB CIC/VS/C/2014/000422/SB
(528.87 KB) pdf icon

31 Mar, 2016

Seema Chandra vs Central Reserve Police Force, Assam

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information.
The Commission held that in the present case the appellant is seeking pay slip etc. of her husband, the same would not qualify to be personal information of third party.

The Commission directed the respondent to provide information as sought by the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

85

CIC/SH/A/2015/000235
(216.66 KB) pdf icon

30 Mar, 2016

Puspanjali Padhy vs Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai

Section 8(1) (j) Personal Information.

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 Section 13 Inquiry Report. The Commission held that the CPIO advised the Appellant to follow section 13 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 to get the information needed by her, he ignored section 13(1), which requires the employer to make the report available to the concerned parties, without requiring those parties to make a demarche in that regard. Because of the above approach adopted by the CPIO, endorsed by the FAA, the Appellant has had to pursue the matter through the RTI route all this while to get the information, thereby undergoing considerable harassment.

The Commission under section of the RTI Act, directed the Respondent to pay a token compensation of Rs. 2000/to the Appellant.

86

CIC/BS/A/2015/000425+00464+000465+000466/10071
(56.51 KB) pdf icon

30 Mar, 2016

Vishal Keshav vs EPFO, Thane

Section 8(1) (j) Personal Information

The Commission held that the information relating to PF subscriber maintained by EPFO is held under fiduciary relationship and is personal in nature and exempted 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.

Further, the Commission relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its decision dated 01 /07 /2009 [W.P.(C) 803/2009 Vijay Prakash v UOI and Ors.], wherein, it has been clarified that in a private dispute, between husband and wife, the basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption from disclosure enacted under section 8(1) (j) cannot be lifted or disturbed unless the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in 'public interest'.

87

CIC/YA/A/2015/001385/MP
(63.03 KB) pdf icon

28 Mar, 2016

Sushil Chandra Sekhar vs Prasar Bharati, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information

The CPIO denied the answer sheets of other candidates while informing the appellant that his name figured at serial no. 2 in the merit list and enclosing his answer sheet. The FAA held that the information sought did not involve any larger public interest and was exempt u/ s 80) (j) of the RTI Act.

The Commission upheld the decision of the FAA.

88

CIC/SA/A/2015/001894
(386.03 KB) pdf icon

16 Mar, 2016

Anita Singh vs Directorate of Health Services, GNCTD

Personal Information

The Commission held that it is clear that the patients and their relatives are entitled to know the treatment details including names and qualifications /experience of doctors. As per the law, this information had to be given within 72 hours, under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. This falls under the scope of definition of information as per the RTI Act. The lack of responsibility from the respondent authority reflects its utter disregard for the law. The Commission issued show cause notice to the PIO to explain why penalty should not be imposed on him for obstructing the process of giving information to the appellant whose son had died during the treatment in Sri Gangaram Hospital. The Commission also noted that the Public Authority did not care to respond to the hearing notice sent by the Commission.

The Commission also directed the PIO to show cause why compensation of Rs. 50,000/- should not be awarded to the appellant.

89

CIC/MP/A/2015/001680
(87.97 KB) pdf icon

15 Mar, 2016

Basavraj Sharanappa Hagargi vs State Bank of Hyderabad, Gulbarga

Section 8(1)(j)-Personal Information

The appellant submitted an RTI application before the CPIO, State Bank of Hyderabad, Gulbarga, seeking a copy of the application for agriculture loan and pass book in respect of late Smt. Sangamma pertaining to her account.

The Commission held that the information as sought by the appellant related to third party and could not be provided under the provisions of sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act and upheld the decision of the CPIO.

90

CIC/RM/A/2014/004399-YA
(71.53 KB) pdf icon

12 Mar, 2016

Burla Prasad Khammam vs Heavy Water Plant

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information

The Commission held that it is not the case of the appellant that a formal chargesheet has been issued to him. The investigation is presently underway and upon conclusion whereof, the Competent authority shall decide as to whether proceedings be initiated against the appellant or not. At present stage, the appellant has no equitable right to seek details of the investigation. Such right would have arisen had the appellant suffered any detriment due to the investigation, which is not the case herein. Yet another facet of the issue is that any revelation of the information sought at this nascent stage of proceedings would unduly fetter upon the prerogative of the investigator.

The Commission upheld the decision of the respondent.