Information pertaining to 296 applicants granted free legal service by DHCLSC - CIC: It relates to personal information of third parties, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest & would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy
5 Mar, 2019O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee (DHCLSC), Delhi High Court (DHC), New Delhi seeking information on two points, pertaining to applicants granted free legal service by DHCLSC, including, inter-alia
(i) complete case-wise details of each 296 applications as stated in an earlier RTI reply with respect to grant of free legal service, and
(ii) particulars related to monetary assistance given to each of the 296 applicants along with certified copies of all 296 applications.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that complete information has not been provided to him. The appellant further submitted that the First Appellate Authority has not given him an opportunity of being heard with regard to his first appeal. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete information. The appellant further requested the Commission to take action against the FAA.
Hearing:
3. The appellant was not present despite notice. The respondent Ms. Anjana Khurana, APIO, Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee along with Shri Arpit Bhargava and Shri Varun Talwar, Advocates were present in person.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 20.12.2018 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The respondent submitted that point-wise reply has already been provided to the appellant vide their letter dated 08.02.2017. The respondent further submitted that Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee provides legal aid as per Section 12 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and holds personal information of applicants in fiduciary capacity. Further, the information sought by the appellant is sensitive in nature and it may endanger the life, physical safety of any person or may identify the source of information. The respondent further submitted that the appellant is seeking personal information of 296 applicants, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third parties. Hence, its disclosure is exempted 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. 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 respondent referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner dated 03.10.2012 in this regard. The respondent further submitted, with regard to point no. 2 of the RTI application, that Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee does not give any monetary aid/assistance to the applicants. Hence, the appellant was informed that monetary assistance has not been given to any of the applicant.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, notes that the information sought by the appellant relates to personal information of third parties i.e. the 296 applicants, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third parties. Hence, its disclosure is exempted 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. 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.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Sunita Jha v. CPIO: Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee, Delhi High Court, New Delhi in Second Appeal No. CIC/DSLSA/A/2017/133231/HCDEL, Date: 07.01.2019