Compliance of Dowry Prohibition Act - mode of payment of the dowry articles along with the bills denied u/s 8(1)(j) - larger public interest claimed as prosecution had been filed - litigation between private parties is not a matter of public interest
11 Aug, 2013ORDER
The appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.1.2012 addressed to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh seeking information on 5 points mainly being compliance of Dowry Prohibition Act by Mr. Multani, mode of payment for the said dowry articles along with the bills/ receipt of payment, his pay scale, asset declaration as per govt. servant rules and list of gifts received for his daughter’s marriage as per govt. servant rules. The CPIO denied the information to the appellant under the provisions 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. The first appellate authority, vide his order dated 20.3.2012, concurred with the view taken by the CPIO and held that:
“In this case before me, the appellant has tried to justify the existence of larger public interest on the grounds that prosecution has been filed against by the UT Govt. I am of the opinion that this is no sufficient ground to hold that there is larger public interest to justify the disclosure of such information in this case”
The appellant has come in second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that there is a complaint against the appellant and that he is defending himself in a criminal case registered with Women & Child Support, Chandigarh under section 498A & 406 of the IPC pertaining to dowry & related issues based on false allegations. The appellant has further submitted that the information is not exempt under the provisions of RTI Act and further relied on SP Gupta Versus UOI [(1982) 2 SCR 365] for establishing that the information sought is in public interest. The appellant submits that false dowry cases are a matter of “larger public interest” and hence the information sought should be provided. In the matter of Vijay Prakash Vs UOI (WP (C ) 803/2009, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has held:
“As discussed earlier, the “public interest” argument of the petitioner is premised on the plea that his wife is a public servant; he is in litigation with her and requires information, in the course of a private dispute to establish the truth of his allegations. The CIC has held that there is no public interest element in the disclosure of such personal information, in possession of the information provider, i.e. the Indian Air Force. This court concurs with the view, on an application of the principles discussed. The petitioner has not been able to justify how such disclosure would be in “public interest”: the litigation is pure and simple, a private one. The basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption (from disclosure) enacted 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. cannot be lifted or disturbed.”
The Commission is of the view that the information sought by the appellant attracts 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. Furthermore, the matters concerning litigation between private parties cannot be said to be a matter of public interest and is not sufficient to lift the exemption granted under the statue. However, the information sought regarding the pay-scale at point no. 3 is disclosable information and the same shall be provided to the appellant within a weeks time. Appeal is disposed off accordingly.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Harbhajan Singh v. Office of the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise in Case No. CIC/SS/A/12/001948