welcome to Personal Information | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
121	CIC/SS/A/2013/001648 (401.68 KB)	08 Oct, 2013	Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs Ministry of Home Affairs The appellant had sought information relating to list of nomination for Padma Awards 2013 including the name of recommending authority for each of the recommended ones - the CPIO denied this information being personal information and for other related information already had expired. Decision The Commission held that it was not open to the CPIO to demand copying charges after a lapse of stipulated period of 30 days and directed the CPIO to return the photocopying charges to the appellant. Further held that such nominations/recommendation do not quality to be personal information or confidential information the disclosure of confidential information the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the person recommending/nominating names of persons. The respondent have not been able to establish how the names of the persons making recommendations/nominations falls under the category of personal information of persons making recommendations/nominations, whereas the names of the recommended/nominated persons is already in the public domain.
122	CIC/BS/A/2012/000761/3640 (41.01 KB)	07 Oct, 2013	Shio Dutt Prasad vs CPIO & Senior Postmaster Department of Posts The appellant sought certain information from the CPIO relating to the disciplinary proceedings conducted against an employee and he wanted the relevant documents relating to the said proceedings- the CPIO contended that the information relates to a third party, is of personal nature and the appellant has not cited any bona fide public purpose to justify the disclosure, hence, denied the information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Decision The Commission held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide decision dated 3.10.2012 in Girish Ramachandra Deshpande vs CIC & others has held that disciplinary orders and the documents in the course of disciplinary proceedings are personal information within the meaning of section 8(1)(j) and the disclosure of which normally has no relationship to any public activities or public interest. The Commission upheld the submissions of the CPIO that the information is exempt under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
123	CIC/SG/A/2012/000211/18093 (51.84 KB)	27 Mar, 2013	M.K. Sachan Vs. PIO, SR. Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Lalbagh, Lucknow, UP Section 8(1)(j) – Personal Information The commission held that in numerous decisions it has been held that information relating to leave and the attendance registers cannot be considered to be exempt information since this is the information regarding the public activity. Taking into the consideration the Appellant’s contention that he was seeking information regarding people appearing before the commission as appellant’s in their private capacity, it appeared that the denial of information was with a purpose to hide this information. The Commission further under section 19(8)(b) awarded a compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the appellant for the harassment to filing the appeal and the delay in getting the information.
124	CIC/AD/A/2012/000210 (204.98 KB)	20 Mar, 2013	A Shiva VS. Railway Recruitment Board, South Lallaguda, Secunderabad Section 8(1)(j) – Personal – The appellant requested the copies of OMR sheets of other candidates and the same was denied by the PIO – The commission upheld the decision of the PIO and the appellant authority and denied the information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
125	CIC/LS/A/2012/900254/BS/1739 (39.50 KB)	22 Jan, 2013	Emam Najir Mirza vs CPIO & DGM(Admn.) BSNL Maharashtra The appellant filed RTI application and sought incoming, outgoing and missed call details of mobile numbers of third party- the PIO has denied the information under RTI Act- The Commission held that BSNL is bound to protect the confidentiality of its subscribers and information relating to call details of a subscriber cannot be disclosed to third party(s) being exempt under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act unless the seeker of information is able to show larger public interest in such disclosure.
126	CIC/DS/A/2012/001283 (313.32 KB)	10 Jan, 2013	Devraj Manav V.S. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi(Sh. K.K. Lohat, CSI/DEMS, SP Zone, Sh. J.K. Sharma, SS, DEMS, North HO, Sh. Naresh Kumar, SS/KBZ, Sh. Hoshier Singh, SS/RZ, DEMS, Sh. Mohan Singh, SS/DAEMS/CZ, Sh. Abhinesh Kumar UDS/DEMS, CL Zone) Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority- section 8(1)(j) personal information Relating to deceased person- the applicant filed RTI application before the CPIO, MCD, New Delhi to obtain information for the period January 1994 to December 2011 pertaining to names of applicants who had applied for employment on compassionate grounds pursuant to the death of the deceased employees along with their personal information- The FAA held that the information sought by the appellant is extremely voluminous and scattered over various zones of MCD and also not available in a compiled form. Compiling of this information would disproportionately divert resources of the public authority in terms of section 7(9) of the RTI Act- Commission agreed with the order of the FAA and held that the appellant has not established any larger public interest in the disclosure of information which is voluminous and requires to be compiled from large number of files across several departments of MCD. It is an established fact that the privacy of all persons including those deceased must be respected and all the personal details pertaining to the deceased can certainly not be disclosed to the appellant in the absence of any larger public interest.
127	CIC/SM/A/2011/002903/VS (304.04 KB)	10 Jan, 2013	Vivek A Vashi V.S. PIO, Canara Bank, Circle Office Asst. GM, Customer Service Section, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005 The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO, asking for details of the workings capital facilities provide by the bank to their subsidiary company, Enercon India Ltd.(EIL)-the PIO denied the information under section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act- The Commission upheld the approach taken by the respondent not to disclose information under sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.
128	CIC/LS/A/2012/002721 (49.76 KB)	10 Jan, 2013	Nathu Ram V.S. Indian Air Force The appellant is an Assistant in the Indian Air Force. He was given below bench mark gradings form 2006 to 2009. He had sought copies of the file notings in which his representation was processed The Commission held that as the appellant belongs to a sensitive organisation like LAF, disclosure of the identity of the officers who processed his case would not be in the interest of the discipline and morale of the LAF, hence,the Commission rejected the requested of the appellant for providing a copy of the file notings.
129	CIC/SM/A/2012/000863 & 847 (208.50 KB)	10 Jan, 2013	Anil Jauhari V.S. CPIO, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Central Avenue, Anushaktinagar, Mumbai -400094 ACR’s of other employee’s – the appellant has sought the copies of several documents relating to his own services matters and including permission to inspect many of those records- the CPIO had provided him the copies of several records after his inspection but denied the copies of the ACR’s of third party employees under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act- The Commission held that weather has been denied, has been rightly denied; the ACR’s of other employees are in the nature of their personal information and cannot be disclosed to the Appellant. The provisions of sub-section 1(j) section 8 of the RTI Act clearly exempt such information from disclosure.
130	CIC/LS/A/2012/000318 /BS/1613 (49.00 KB)	07 Jan, 2013	Sadanand Sahane V.S. CPIO, ITI Limited, Corporate Office Bangalore- 560093 The appellant had sought certain information including records to clearance of promotions, documents related to promotions made in Group-1 to Group – 2, interview/selection process related records – the CPIO started that the appellant wanted to inspect the promotion records of other candidates including those of higher grades, which relates to third party(s) and is exempted under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act The Commission upheld the submission of the CPIO regarding the promotion records of other candidates (including those of higher grades) being exempt under the RTI Act.
131	CIC/BS/A/2012/000767 +000768+000919/1607 (56.88 KB)	04 Jan, 2013	Amar Lal Arora V.S. CPIO & Senior Master, Department of Posts, Sansad Marg, Head Post Officer, New Delhi- 110001 The appellant filed an RTI application seeking certain information relating to an employee Ms. Shashi Bala- the CPIO stated that most of information are available on website and with regards to Ms. Sashi Bala contended that the appellant is an ex-employee of Delhi university and has been dismissed form service under Court orders; he has a serious matrimonial dispute with Ms. Sashi Bala and has been filing multiple RTI applications seeking various personal information with a view to harass & humiliate her and in the grab of seeking information is misusing the provisions of the RTI Act with malafide intentions to settle personal scores- The Commission upheld the exemption claimed by the CPIO for non-disclosure of personal information relating to the employee Ms. Shashi Bala under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and advised the appellant not to misuse the RTI Act.
132	CIC/LS/A/2012/002555 (32.61 KB)	04 Jan, 2013	Arunashu Bhattacharya V.S. Indian Navy It is the case of the appellant that he was considered for promotion but was ignored and Sailors junior to him, were promoted- he had sought ACR records of other Sailors and other collateral information-this information was denied to him by the CPIO The Commission held that the service records of other Sailors cannot be provided to him.
133	CIC/SS/A/2012/001425 (195.26 KB)	23 Oct, 2012	Shri S.P. Singh Vs. Delhi Police, West District The Appellant made certain allegations of medical negligence against Kalra Hospital, Kirti Nagar and Bhagat Hospital, Janakpuri — number of queries were raised by the appellant pertaining to allegation of wrong diagnosis in respect of Smt. Chalti Devi by these two hospitals and action taken on the complaint filed by him before the SHO, Kirti Nagar and SHO, Mayapuri. The Commission observed that many of the queries in the RTI application are in the nature of seeking reasons and explanations from the respondent, which do not fall within the ambit of information as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. Section 2(1)
134	CIC/SM/A/2011/002673 (206.30 KB)	24 Sep, 2012	Shri K.B. Bhasin Vs. CPIO The Appellant sought a number of details. Almost all the information was disclosed except some personal information relating to the medical condition of the employee concerned. CIC directed to provide part of the information which is disclosable. Section 8(1)(j)
135	CIC/DS/A/2011/002183RM (77.95 KB)	10 Jul, 2012	Mr. N.N. Puri Vs. Income Tax Department, Gurgaon The Commission held that the ITRs are personal information and hence exempt form disclosure. This has been reiterated by a Full Bench decision of the CIC in the Milap Cboraria Case. Section 8(1)(j)

121

CIC/SS/A/2013/001648
(401.68 KB) pdf icon

08 Oct, 2013

Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs Ministry of Home Affairs

The appellant had sought information relating to list of nomination for Padma Awards 2013 including the name of recommending authority for each of the recommended ones - the CPIO denied this information being personal information and for other related information already had expired.
Decision
The Commission held that it was not open to the CPIO to demand copying charges after a lapse of stipulated period of 30 days and directed the CPIO to return the photocopying charges to the appellant. Further held that such nominations/recommendation do not quality to be personal information or confidential information the disclosure of confidential information the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the person recommending/nominating names of persons. The respondent have not been able to establish how the names of the persons making recommendations/nominations falls under the category of personal information of persons making recommendations/nominations, whereas the names of the recommended/nominated persons is already in the public domain.

122

CIC/BS/A/2012/000761/3640
(41.01 KB) pdf icon

07 Oct, 2013

Shio Dutt Prasad vs CPIO & Senior Postmaster Department of Posts

The appellant sought certain information from the CPIO relating to the disciplinary proceedings conducted against an employee and he wanted the relevant documents relating to the said proceedings-
the CPIO contended that the information relates to a third party, is of personal nature and the appellant has not cited any bona fide public purpose to justify the disclosure, hence, denied the information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Decision
The Commission held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide decision dated 3.10.2012 in Girish Ramachandra Deshpande vs CIC & others has held that disciplinary orders and the documents in the course of disciplinary proceedings are personal information within the meaning of section 8(1)(j) and the disclosure of which normally has no relationship to any public activities or public interest. The Commission upheld the submissions of the CPIO that the information is exempt under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

123

CIC/SG/A/2012/000211/18093
(51.84 KB) pdf icon

27 Mar, 2013

M.K. Sachan Vs. PIO, SR. Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Lalbagh, Lucknow, UP

Section 8(1)(j) – Personal Information
The commission held that in numerous decisions it has been held that information relating to leave and the attendance registers cannot be considered to be exempt information since this is the information regarding the public activity. Taking into the consideration the Appellant’s contention that he was seeking information regarding people appearing before the commission as appellant’s in their private capacity, it appeared that the denial of information was with a purpose to hide this information. The Commission further under section 19(8)(b) awarded a compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the appellant for the harassment to filing the appeal and the delay in getting the information.

124

CIC/AD/A/2012/000210
(204.98 KB) pdf icon

20 Mar, 2013

A Shiva VS. Railway Recruitment Board, South Lallaguda, Secunderabad

Section 8(1)(j) – Personal –
The appellant requested the copies of OMR sheets of other candidates and the same was denied by the PIO –
The commission upheld the decision of the PIO and the appellant authority and denied the information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

125

CIC/LS/A/2012/900254/BS/1739
(39.50 KB) pdf icon

22 Jan, 2013

Emam Najir Mirza vs CPIO & DGM(Admn.) BSNL Maharashtra

The appellant filed RTI application and sought incoming, outgoing and missed call details of mobile numbers of third party- the PIO has denied the information under RTI Act-
The Commission held that BSNL is bound to protect the confidentiality of its subscribers and information relating to call details of a subscriber cannot be disclosed to third party(s) being exempt under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act unless the seeker of information is able to show larger public interest in such disclosure.

126

CIC/DS/A/2012/001283
(313.32 KB) pdf icon

10 Jan, 2013

Devraj Manav V.S. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi(Sh. K.K. Lohat, CSI/DEMS, SP Zone, Sh. J.K. Sharma, SS, DEMS, North HO, Sh. Naresh Kumar, SS/KBZ, Sh. Hoshier Singh, SS/RZ, DEMS, Sh. Mohan Singh, SS/DAEMS/CZ, Sh. Abhinesh Kumar UDS/DEMS, CL Zone)

Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority- section 8(1)(j) personal information Relating to deceased person- the applicant filed RTI application before the CPIO, MCD, New Delhi to obtain information for the period January 1994 to December 2011 pertaining to names of applicants who had applied for employment on compassionate grounds pursuant to the death of the deceased employees along with their personal information-

The FAA held that the information sought by the appellant is extremely voluminous and scattered over various zones of MCD and also not available in a compiled form. Compiling of this information would disproportionately divert resources of the public authority in terms of section 7(9) of the RTI Act-

Commission agreed with the order of the FAA and held that the appellant has not established any larger public interest in the disclosure of information which is voluminous and requires to be compiled from large number of files across several departments of MCD. It is an established fact that the privacy of all persons including those deceased must be respected and all the personal details pertaining to the deceased can certainly not be disclosed to the appellant in the absence of any larger public interest.

127

CIC/SM/A/2011/002903/VS
(304.04 KB) pdf icon

10 Jan, 2013

Vivek A Vashi V.S. PIO, Canara Bank, Circle Office Asst. GM, Customer Service Section, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005

The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO, asking for details of the workings capital facilities provide by the bank to their subsidiary company, Enercon India Ltd.(EIL)-the PIO denied the information under section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act-

The Commission upheld the approach taken by the respondent not to disclose information under sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.

128

CIC/LS/A/2012/002721
(49.76 KB) pdf icon

10 Jan, 2013

Nathu Ram V.S. Indian Air Force

The appellant is an Assistant in the Indian Air Force. He was given below bench mark gradings form 2006 to 2009. He had sought copies of the file notings in which his representation was processed
The Commission held that as the appellant belongs to a sensitive organisation like LAF, disclosure of the identity of the officers who processed his case would not be in the interest of the discipline and morale of the LAF, hence,the Commission rejected the requested of the appellant for providing a copy of the file notings.

129

CIC/SM/A/2012/000863 & 847
(208.50 KB) pdf icon

10 Jan, 2013

Anil Jauhari V.S. CPIO, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Central Avenue, Anushaktinagar, Mumbai -400094

ACR’s of other employee’s – the appellant has sought the copies of several documents relating to his own services matters and including permission to inspect many of those records- the CPIO had provided him the copies of several records after his inspection but denied the copies of the ACR’s of third party employees under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act-

The Commission held that weather has been denied, has been rightly denied; the ACR’s of other employees are in the nature of their personal information and cannot be disclosed to the Appellant. The provisions of sub-section 1(j) section 8 of the RTI Act clearly exempt such information from disclosure.

130

CIC/LS/A/2012/000318 /BS/1613
(49.00 KB) pdf icon

07 Jan, 2013

Sadanand Sahane V.S. CPIO, ITI Limited, Corporate Office Bangalore- 560093

The appellant had sought certain information including records to clearance of promotions, documents related to promotions made in Group-1 to Group – 2, interview/selection process related records – the CPIO started that the appellant wanted to inspect the promotion records of other candidates including those of higher grades, which relates to third party(s) and is exempted under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act

The Commission upheld the submission of the CPIO regarding the promotion records of other candidates (including those of higher grades) being exempt under the RTI Act.

131

CIC/BS/A/2012/000767 +000768+000919/1607
(56.88 KB) pdf icon

04 Jan, 2013

Amar Lal Arora V.S. CPIO & Senior Master, Department of Posts, Sansad Marg, Head Post Officer, New Delhi- 110001

The appellant filed an RTI application seeking certain information relating to an employee Ms. Shashi Bala- the CPIO stated that most of information are available on website and with regards to Ms. Sashi Bala contended that the appellant is an ex-employee of Delhi university and has been dismissed form service under Court orders; he has a serious matrimonial dispute with Ms. Sashi Bala and has been filing multiple RTI applications seeking various personal information with a view to harass & humiliate her and in the grab of seeking information is misusing the provisions of the RTI Act with malafide intentions to settle personal scores- The Commission upheld the exemption claimed by the CPIO for non-disclosure of personal information relating to the employee Ms. Shashi Bala under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and advised the appellant not to misuse the RTI Act.

132

CIC/LS/A/2012/002555
(32.61 KB) pdf icon

04 Jan, 2013

Arunashu Bhattacharya V.S. Indian Navy

It is the case of the appellant that he was considered for promotion but was ignored and Sailors junior to him, were promoted- he had sought ACR records of other Sailors and other collateral information-this information was denied to him by the CPIO

The Commission held that the service records of other Sailors cannot be provided to him.

133

CIC/SS/A/2012/001425
(195.26 KB) pdf icon

23 Oct, 2012

Shri S.P. Singh Vs. Delhi Police, West District

The Appellant made certain allegations of medical negligence against Kalra Hospital, Kirti Nagar and Bhagat Hospital, Janakpuri — number of queries were raised by the appellant pertaining to allegation of wrong diagnosis in respect of Smt. Chalti Devi by these two hospitals and action taken on the complaint filed by him before the SHO, Kirti Nagar and SHO, Mayapuri. The Commission observed that many of the queries in the RTI application are in the nature of seeking reasons and explanations from the respondent, which do not fall within the ambit of information as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. Section 2(1)

134

CIC/SM/A/2011/002673
(206.30 KB) pdf icon

24 Sep, 2012

Shri K.B. Bhasin Vs. CPIO

The Appellant sought a number of details. Almost all the information was disclosed except some personal information relating to the medical condition of the employee concerned. CIC directed to provide part of the information which is disclosable. Section 8(1)(j)

135

CIC/DS/A/2011/002183RM
(77.95 KB) pdf icon

10 Jul, 2012

Mr. N.N. Puri Vs. Income Tax Department, Gurgaon

The Commission held that the ITRs are personal information and hence exempt form disclosure. This has been reiterated by a Full Bench decision of the CIC in the Milap Cboraria Case. Section 8(1)(j)