Certified copy of entire pages of correspondence & noting side of the file by which a particular order was issued - Respondent: Information regarding transfer of other employees has no relationship to any public activity or interest - CIC: Denial upheld
22 Apr, 2024O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.07.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Kindly arrange to provide me the certified copy of entire pages of correspondence & Noting side of the file by which following order has been issued:
HR Section, State Bank of India, Administrative Office, Ranchi Office Order No. 2022-23 Dated 08.07.2022 (enclosed herewith)
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.07.2022 denied the information under section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.07.2022, alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 20.08.2022, upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
5. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Pramod Kumar A.G.M, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a response to the RTI application in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 22.07.2022. He stated that the appellant had sought copies of entire pages of correspondence & noting w.r.t transfer of other employees (third-party), disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Accordingly, they claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 22.07.2022. The Commission notes that the appellant has sought for the personal information of a third party (employees), which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the parties is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of “personal information”envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context ofearlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
“59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive…”
8. In view of above-mentioned observation, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
ANANDI RAMALINGAM
Information Commissioner
Citation: Chotu Shaw v. State Bank of India, CIC/SBIND/A/2022/648005; Date of Decision: 18.03.2024