Inspection Reports of University school of Law, list of law faculties etc. was sought - CIC: PIO to provide the available inspection report along with the list of law faculties; PIO is at liberty to redact the identifying particulars of third parties
10 Mar, 2022Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.02.2020 seeking the following information:
1. Inspection Reports of the year 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-2020 of University school of Law, Desh Bhagat University, Mandi Gobindgarh.
2. The list of law faculties submitted by Desh Bhagat University, Mandl Gobindgarh.
3. The copy of the appointment and lowing letters at all the faculty rr.M.CT, of University school of Law, Desh Bhagat University, Mandl Gobindgarh.
4. The attendance record of all the faculty members of University school of law, Desh Bhagat University; Mandi Gobindgarh.
5. The account statement which reflects the mode of payment to the faculty members of University School of law, Desh Bhagat University, Mandi Gobindgarh.
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.05.2020. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Jogiram Sharma, Additional Secretary & CPIO present through audio conference.
The CPIO submitted that a reply to the RTI Application has been provided to the Appellant on 17.08.2020 wherein with respect to points 1 & 2 of the RTI Application the Appellant has been informed about the decision taken by the inspection committee in detail and as for points 3, 4 & 5, the Appellant has been advised to seek for the said information from the concerned University as the BCI is not the custodian of the records.
The Appellant stated that he has not received the reply of 17.08.2020 and argued further that he has asked for the inspection report which is not being provided by the CPIO and for the remaining points also, he insisted for the information to be provided to him.
Decision:
The Commission based on the submissions of the CPIO during the hearing observes that he has erred in not providing the specific information as sought for at points 1 & 2 of the RTI Application. However, no scope of relief is pertinent with respect to points 3,4,5 of the RTI Application as it seeks personal information of various third parties, disclosure of which stands 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. 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. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant 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. 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 RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier 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…”
Having observed as above, the CPIO is directed to provide the available inspection report as sought for at point no.1 of the RTI Application along with the information sought for at point no.2 therein. In doing so, the CPIO is at liberty to redact the names and identifying particulars of third parties from the averred inspection report(s), disclosure of which may cause unwarranted invasion of their privacy or may endanger their life or physical safety as per 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. 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. and (g) of the RTI Act respectively. The severance of records, if any, will be carried out by the CPIO as per Section 10 of the RTI Act. In addition to this, the CPIO is also directed to resend a copy of the reply dated 17.08.2020 to the Appellant.
The information as directed above shall be provided free of cost to the Appellant by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani
Information Commissioner
Citation: Ajay Goyal v. Bar Council of India in File No : CIC/BCOIN/A/2020/679872, Date of Decision : 20/01/2022