3 complaints were received in appellants name making certain allegations against the chairman of the school - CIC: The complainant has a right to know who is using his name which could be possible only when he being made provided with the copy of complain
22 Feb, 2016Information Sought:
1. Appellant through his RTI application sought copy of 3 complaints made on 31.9.2013, 1.10.2013 and 28.9.2013 to Dy Director of Education with his forged and fake signature.
CPIO Reply:
2. CPIO denied the information by claiming exemption of 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 Act
Ground of First Appeal :
3. CPIO wrongly claim blanket exemption of section 8 of the Act
First Appellate authority order:
4. Upheld CPIO reply
Ground of Appeal:
5. Wrongly claim the exemption of 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.
Proceeding Before the Commission
6. Both the parties heard and made the submission. The appellant submitted before the Commission that on 14.10.2013, the Manager, H.L Jain Senior Secondary School has called him and told that 3 complaints had been received in his name from the authorities of education. On visiting the school, the manager showed him the complaints and asked to verify whether they are signed and made by him .On asking for the copy of the complaint, the manager refused to provide it officially, which appellant needed to reply the manager query properly and also to take necessary action regarding the same. Appellant further stated that all these complaints were shown to him were false and fabricated and the same were made by some unscrupulous element just to defame and harm him. When copy of these complaint are sought through the channel of RTI, then the CPIO/Ld. Manager & Ld. Chairman of the school have also committed serious error to deny the required information by claiming exemption of 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. Appellant also submitted that he has a legal right to have copies of such complaints as here his reputation is in question.
7. Council on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted before the Commission that in these 3 complaints certain allegations were levelled against the chairman of the school. On going through the complaints, the appellant vehemently refused to have made the said complaint and denied to have any knowledge about the same. Appellant’s statement was recorded by the respondent in the presence of Mr. Anil Kumar Jain, UDC of the school and appellant was requested to sign the same. He, however, refused to sign the statement. After finding the complaints to be annoying, the school forwarded the same on 17.10.2013 to the Directorate of Education.
8. Counsel for respondent further submitted that furnishing the copy of those three complaints has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. The complaint has neither been signed nor been made by the appellant nor the appellant has any knowledge of the said complaint. Therefore, disclosure of the same would defiantly amount to cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual complaint against, who is a repudiated CA holding the post of the Principal of the school. Thus, denial of the information 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 act is fully justified.
Decision:
9. Having heard the submission and perusal of records, the Commission finds that the appellant has a interest in protecting his name and fame. He apprehended that same one is causing disreputation by filing complaints in his name. The commission finds that the complainant has a right to know who is using his name and it is interest of justice to complaint against the misuse of his name which could be possible only when he being made provided with the copy of the complaints. The Commission, therefore, does not accept the contention of the council for respondent and find that section 8(1) (j) is not applicable in this case and directs the respondent authority to provide the certified copy of three complaints to the appellant along with the enquiry report on the matter within 21 days from the date of receipt of order. The Commission expected from the appellant to use these copy of complaints only to clear his doubt and not for any other purpose.
10. In view of the above, the Commission closed the appeal.
(M.Sridhar Acharyulu)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Sh. Satyendra Pal Singh v. Hira Lal Jain senior Secondary School in case No.CIC/SA/A/2014/000978 & CIC/SA/A/2014/000977