Certain information related to a Medicolegal case was denied by AIIMS u/s 8(1)(j) - Appellant claimed to be the father of the patient - Respondent agreed to provide the information if the patient filed the application himself or authorised the appellant
Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 29.03.2019 seeking information on four points. The requisite information sought is as under:-
1. Provide the time of MLC numbers 500090228/2018 of Gagan Singh and 500090232/2018 of Shri Bharat dated 13.04.2018
2. Provide the name and copy of signature of the Police official of PS Sarita Vihar who collected the above MLCs.
3. Provide the date and time of collection of the above said MLCs by Police official of PS Sarita Vihar.
4. Provide copy the above said MLCs
The CPIO, JPNATC, AIIMS, Delhi furnished a reply to the appellant vide letter dated 24.04.2019, denying disclosure of information citing 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. of the RTI Act, 2005.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.04.2019. The FAA vide order dated 24.05.2019 observed that the information has already been furnished and supplied another copy of the CPIO’s reply to the appellant. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties participated in the hearing on being contacted on their respective telephones. Respondent stated that the information could not be furnished till date since it relates to third parties viz. Sh. Gagan Singh and Sh. Bharat. Appellant claims to be the father of Sh. Gagan Singh and seeks information as the father of the patient. The information pertaining to Sh. Bharat, shall be exempt from disclosure since it relates to a third party, who is not related to the appellant.
During the course of hearing, it transpired from deliberations between the parties, that respondent agrees to provide information, as permissible under the RTI Act, 2005, provided Sh. Gagan Singh files the application himself to obtain the information or authorises the appellant to obtain the information as his father. Appellant is at liberty to take necessary steps in terms of the respondent’s averments, and obtain the desired information, as permissible under the Act.
The appeal is disposed off with no further directions.
Y. K. Sinha
Citation: Shri Prem Singh v. Jai Prakash Narayan Trauma Centre, AIIMS in Second Appeal No. CIC/AIIMS/A/2019/130126, Date of Decision : 11.09.2020