Appellant: His wife is harassing him & he needs the information for defense in court; There is larger public interest as he is being deprived of his personal liberty & has a right to justice - CIC: This reason cannot be classified as larger public purpose
13 Jan, 2016Information sought:
The appellant sought information regarding month-wise details of deduction amount sent by the concerned company M/s Balaji to your office in respect of employee listed at Sl.No.26 bearing A/c No.BR/MU2/0020561/26.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Jitendra Kumar through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, CPIO through VC (M):09472285918;
The appellant stated that he has not been provided the information sought in his RTI application dated 12/05/2014. The CPIO stated that the information sought by the appellant relates to third party, is personal in nature and exempt under Section 8 (1)(e) of the RTI Act. He submitted that financial information relating to members of EPFO is held under fiduciary relationship. The appellant contested stating that Ms. Neetu Singh is his legally wedded wife and is harassing him through coercive proceedings and he needs the information to defend himself in the court. The CPIO argued that if it be so, the proper course for the appellant would be to apply to the concerned court for summoning the records of EPFO but he cannot seek such information under the RTI Act. The appellant argued that there is larger public interest as he is being deprived of his personal liberty and has a right to justice. He further stated that if such information is not disclosed the whole male community will be put to disadvantage as many frivolous complaints are being lodged by females with a view to harass/blackmail a person. The CPIO contested stating that in a dispute between two parties only private interest is involved and no larger public purpose will be served by disclosing the personal information.
The appellant pleaded that he is an advocate and practicing in the High Court of Patna and if the respondent provide the information it will save much valuable time of all the parties including that of the Hon’ble Court. The CPIO stated that the statutory exemption enacted under Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act cannot be lifted by a public authority without satisfying the test of larger public interest. The appellant stated that under the Hindu Law the property belongs to both husband and wife and he cannot be put under the category of ‘third party’ as he has a right over the properties.
Decision notice:
Section 2(n) “third party” means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority. of the RTI Act reads as under:
“‘third party’ means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority.”
In the matter at hand the appellant is seeking information from EPFO relating to a subscriber Ms. Neetu Singh. Thus, he is clearly seeking third party information. The fact that the appellant is the husband of the subscriber does not in any way dilute the third party’s right. In terms of Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act information held under fiduciary relationship cannot be supplied unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. It is, therefore, to be understood clearly that it is a statutory exemption which must operate as a rule and only in exceptional cases would disclosure be permitted, that too, for reasons to be recorded demonstrating satisfaction to the test of larger public interest. It will not be in consonance with the spirit of these provisions, if in a mechanical manner, directions are passed by the appropriate authority to disclose information which may be protected in terms of the above provision.
In the matter at hand the appellant has pleaded that his wife Ms. Neetu Singh is harassing him through coercive proceedings and he needs the information to defend himself in the court. This reason cannot be classified as “larger public purpose”. It being so, the decision of the CPIO not to disclose the information cannot be interfered with. Before parting with this matter we would like to state that a division bench of this Commission in appeal no. CIC/OK/A/2006/00072, dated 06/06/2006 (Om Prakash Pokhriyal Vs Indian Air Lines Limited) has, inter alia, observed that for accessing information intended to be used in matrimonial dispute between the parties the Central Information Commission is hardly the appropriate forum and the parties can get the information through the good offices of the courts where the case is being contested. The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Jitendra Kumar V. EPFO in File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/001646/8054