Assets & liabilities statement of Mr. U.K. Sinha, Chairman SEBI were denied u/s 8(1)(e) & 8(1)(j) - Appellant: He gave up a very high emoluments job to dilute the cases of some major defaulters in the capital market - CIC: disclosure is in public interest
9 Feb, 2015ORDER
This case was heard on 11th August, 2014.
2. The brief facts are that Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal, the appellant, submitted an application dated 17.01.2012 to the CPIO of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (the SEBI) established under section 3 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (the SEBI Act) seeking certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (the Act). The points on which information was sought are as follows:-
(a) The assets and liabilities statement of Mr. U.K. Sinha, Chairman SEBI for the last three years, or for the period declared by him; and
(b) the total present emoluments of Mr. U.K. Sinha, Chairman SEBI along with perquisites on which he has been employed with SEBI.
3. The CPIO in his reply dated 13.02.2012 informed the appellant in respect of point (a) that the information sought is personal information and that the same is provided to the SEBI in fiduciary capacity. Hence, the same is exempt 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; and 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 Act. With respect to point (b), the appellant was informed that the information is available in public domain.
4. The appellant’s first appeal dated 21.02.2012 was dismissed by order dated 16.03.2012 as the first appellate authority did not find any merit in the appeal.
5. In his second appeal dated 18.06.2012, the appellant submitted that the information requested is about the Chairman of SEBI. There is a conflict of interest of the appellate authority as he has applied for reappointment in the SEBI and the Chairman of SEBI has a considerable say in his reappointment. Mr. Sinha did not disclose his true emoluments to the Government at the time of his appointment as Chairman, SEBI. It is in the public interest that the information requested for may be provided in public interest under sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Act.
6. During the hearing, the appellant submitted that –
(b) the requested information should be disclosed as the officers of the SEBI regulate the capital market;
(c) Shri Sinha gave up a job of over 3 crores per annum to become Chairman, SEBI at emoluments of Rs.36 lakhs per annum. It was done to dilute cases of some of the major offenders on the capital market. Hence, this information should be disclosed in public interest.
(d) the Act should align itself with the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 and the requested information should be disclosed; and
(e) he relied upon order dated 06.02.2013 in CIC/SM/A/2012/ 001082 – Arun Kumar Agrawal vs CPIO, DOPT by which property returns of Shri U.K. Sinha, retired IAS officer were ordered to be disclosed.
7. Dr. Anil Kumar Sharma, CPIO, SEBI submitted that –
(a) he is relying upon the reply of the CPIO and the order of the first appellate authority;
(b) the information submitted by Shri Sinha was in fiduciary capacity and pertained to personal information, and therefore, was exempt 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; and 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. . He relied upon order dated 06.11.2012 of the Commission in this matter.
Discussion:
8. We have taken into account the submissions made by the parties during the hearing and have gone through the contents of the appeal and the written submissions of the parties.
9. The issue for consideration in the matter is whether the requested information, which is personal information, should be disclosed in the larger public interest.
10. This Commission in its decision dated 10.12.2008 in appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00563/LS – R.K. Aggarwal vs DDA, while dealing with the matter relating to the disclosure of information in regard to the assets and liabilities of certain DDA officers, held that the requested information being personal information is non-disclosable in terms 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 Act. In the matter of K. Pasunkili vs LIC of India (Case No. CIC/DS/ A/ 2012/000965 of 08.11.2012), this Commission observed that “However, information regarding the movable and immovable properties of the third party is personal information and in the absence of any larger public interest may not be disclosed in the public domain.” This Commission in its order dated 06.02.2013 in file No. CIC/SM/A/2012/001082 – Arun Kumar Agrawal vs CPIO, DOPT held that there was no reason why the property returns of a particular officer should not be disclosed and ordered for disclosure of the information.
11. This Commission recognizes the perspective brought out on public interest in section 8(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. of the Act in the course of the hearing. The appellant underlined the dimensions of public interest overriding the protected interest, i.e., the protection given to the ‘fiduciary’ and ‘personal information’ elements. However, the other side argued that the appellant is overstating the public interest. The appellant said that Shri Sinha gave up a job of very high emoluments, which was done to dilute the cases of some major defaulters in the capital market, hence, the need to know, in the public interest, about the assets and liabilities of Shri Sinha.
12. Taking into account the arguments of the appellant, this appears to be fit case where the requested information should be disclosed in larger public interest.
Decision:
13. In view of the above, we are inclined to allow the disclosure of the requested information. The respondent is directed to provide the information sought in para 2 (a) and (b) above to the appellant within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
14. The appeal is allowed.
(M.A. Khan Yusufi)
Information Commissioner
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal v. SEBI in F.No.CIC/SM/A/2012/001062
This order has been stayed by the Bombay High Court