Details of pension received by an army pensioner was denied u/s 8(1)(j) - appellant was getting maintenance allowance from the account holder and information was sought for the purpose of court proceedings - CIC: provide the information in public interest
15 Dec, 2013O R D E R
Facts:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 2122012 seeking information on the details of pension (including allowances) received in the months of January and February 2012 separately by an army pensioner.
2. The CPIO responded on 2352012, denying the information to the appellant 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 on ground of a third party information. The appellant filed an appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 1462012. The FAA responded on 2262012 and upheld the decision of the CPIO. The appellant approached the Commission on 22112012 in a second appeal.
Hearing:
3. The appellant submitted a letter to the Commission on 23112013 in which she had stated that she will not be able to participate in the hearing fixed on 26112013 due to personal illness. The appellant stated in her letter that she required the said information because this was connected with her livelihood. It is also evident from the letter of the appellant that the account holder is paying maintenance to the appellant.
4. The respondent stated that the information that the appellant was seeking pertained to the details of pension received in the months of January and February, 2012 separately by an account holder in the bank. The respondent stated that they have responded on 2352012 stating that the information was personal in nature and hence this was denied 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.
5. What emerged from the hearing was that the appellant was getting maintenance allowance from the account holder as per law. It is in this light that the appellant is seeking the information for the purpose of court proceedings.
6. The court process pertinent to the appellant will be handicapped if the information is denied. This is not in the public interest. Hence, the respondent must provide the information sought.
Decision:
7. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant, within 30 days of this order, the information sought in the RTI application. Appeal is disposed of. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Ms Jamna Devi v. Punjab National Bank in Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2013/000075/05537