Appellant: Information sought to ensure that the employment of the causal workers remains intact - CIC: Argument lacks any tenacity; Right to privacy of the third parties outweighs the interest of the Appellant in seeking disclosure of their information

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.01.2022 seeking information as under :-

“I, the undersigned, refer to a letter dated 15.11.2020 issued by Shri C. Malolan, Head HR Operations, Bank of Baroda, HO enclosing along with the above referred letter list of Temporary Job- workers/Casual workers, advising your office that their temporary engagement is continued till further instructions. It was also advised that in case, branch/office where the said listed person is engaged is closed/merged with other branch, the said enlisted person should be shifted to another branch/office but under no circumstances the listed person should be disengaged.

The matter is seized in conciliation, therefore, Section=33 of Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 shall be applicable, whereby, the service conditions should not be altered and status quo needs to be maintained.

I shall be highly obliged if list of above referred Temporary workers/Casual workers of your Zone attached with the above referred letter is supplied to me.”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 09.02.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“The matter is sub-judice and is before conciliation officer as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In view of the same disclosure of the information sought by you would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes. The same is exempted from disclosure as per section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act, 2005.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.02.2022. The FAA vide order dated 05.04.2022 upheld the reply provided by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 28.04.2022.

5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Rahul Sharma, Chief Manager & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The Respondent reiterated the denial of the information under Section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; of the RTI Act and further explained that since the matter is pending conciliation, disclosure of the names will prejudice the interest of the parties to the proceedings including the Bank.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the Appellant in the grounds of second appeal has argued that he is seeking for the disclosure of the information to ensure that the employment of the causal workers remains intact as per the status quo directed by the competent authority. However, the said argument appears to be lacking any tenacity, rather, the Commission finds that the right to privacy of the third parties outweighs the interest of the Appellant in seeking disclosure of their information in the instant matter. Therefore, in the considered opinion of the bench, while the exemption of Section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; of the RTI Act is not out of place, a more appropriate clause would be 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. 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. 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…”

8. Having observed as above, no relief is warranted in the matter.

9. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Girish W. Charania v. Bank of Baroda, Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2022/122806; Date of Decision: 19.01.2024