Contradictory reply of the PIO and FAA under RTI
30 May, 2012Background
The appellant sought information regarding the action taken on the complaint made by Group-A woman officers working in the Chennai Telephones. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the requested information 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 the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) claimed that no complaint was made by Group-A woman officers. The appellant filed the second appeal with the Central Information Commission (CIC) contending that the replies of PIO and the FAA are contradictory.
View of CIC
The Commission observed that the appellant’s argument were true. If no such complaint was filed with the competent authority the PIO should have stated ‘nil’ information rather than invoking 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. The Commission upheld the order of the FAA and rejected the appeal.
Citation: C. Chamundeeswari v. BSNL in File No.CIC/LS/A/2011/002775
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/310
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission