FAA concurred with denial of attendance details in respect of Shri Muneshwar Pandey for a particular month u/s 8(1)(j) - CIC: Official attendance details of a third party is not a personal information; Provide the attendance details of the third party
30 Jun, 2021
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the attendance details in respect of Shri Muneshwar Pandey, serving with 01 Bihar Naval Unit NCC, Patna (Bihar) for the month of January, 2017.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information u/s 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. 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 the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant’s representative pressed for the information sought.
Advocate Dheeraj Kumar contested that disclosure of information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the third party. He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in case of Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager vs C.S. Shyam & Anr. The relevant para relied upon by him are extracted below:
“4) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature; secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1.”
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 18.05.2018 denied the information sought u/s 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. 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 the RTI Act. The FAA also concurred with the CPIO’s reply. The Commission observes that the official attendance details of a third party is not a personal information. Moreover, when the same cannot be construed as a personal information there is no question of considering the larger public interest aspect in this case.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the CPIO is directed to send a copy of the attendance details of the third party to the appellant within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order. The CPIO shall ensure that no strategic details, in respect of the organisation, is shared while sharing the attendance details of the third party.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Vijay Krishna son of Rajnath Singh v. National Cadet Corps in File no.: - CIC/NCCOR/A/2019/122518, Date of Decision: 26/04/2021