Disclosure of the minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee under RTI
2 Jan, 2015
Case Title THDC Limited vs T. Chanda Biswas 1
(In comparison with other judgements on similar matters)
Case No. W. P. (C) No. 7923/2013
Decided on 21/11/2014
Court Delhi High Court (Single Bench)
1. Basic Facts:
1.1 In August 2009, the Respondent, Smt. T. Chanda Biswas, an employee of the Petitioner‐ THDC, a public sector enterprise, sought the following information relating to the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) regarding her promotion matters:
“a) Attested Copy of DPC 2007 & attested copy of DPC 2008 proceedings for the post of AGMs.
b) Attested Copy of Marks allotted by DPC Members in DPC 2007 for the post of AGMs.
c) Attested Copy of Marks allotted by DPC Members in DPC 2009 for the post of AGMs.
d) What are the criteria followed for promotions from DGM to AGM.
e) Attested Copy of DPC 2006 proceedings for the post of DGM.
f) Name of all eligible Senior Managers who appeared for DPC 2006 interview for the post of DGMs.
g) How many were promoted as DGM w.e.f. 01. 04. 2006 and their names.
h) What are the criteria followed for promotion from Sr. Manager to DGM in 2006.”
1.2 The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of THDC provided some of the information requested by the Respondent and declined to disclose the DPC minutes as well as the interview marks obtained by other candidates considered by the DPC for promotion.
1.3 Aggrieved by the CPIO’s refusal to furnish the information relating to the DPC minutes,
the Respondent submitted a first appeal under the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority
(FAA) failed to give an order on the first appeal.
1.4 The Respondent filed a second appeal with the Central Information Commission (CIC).
The CIC clubbed another appeal filed earlier by the Petitioner with the instant case and decided both matters through a common order directing disclosure of the DPC minutes as sought by the Respondent.
1.5 Aggrieved by the CIC’s order, the Petitioner challenged it through a Writ Petition in 2010 before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (DHC). In 2013, DHC remanded the matter back to the CIC to consider the matter de novo permitting the Petitioner to raise objections under the RTI Act such as protection for personal information provided to third parties (other candidates whose cases were considered by the DPC) and the non‐observance of third party procedure provided in Section 11 of the Act 2. DHC also directed the CIC to dispose of the appeal having regard to the judgement of the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs CIC and Anr.3, and the DHC’s own judgement in the matter of Arvind Kejriwal vs CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat, 4 and R K Jain vs Union of India5.
1.6 The CIC disposed of the appeal rejecting the Petitioner’s contention that the DPC proceedings were covered 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; of the RTI Act (information available in a fiduciary relationship) and ordered disclosure of copies of DPC proceedings for the years 2006, 2007 and 2009 ‐ sought by the Respondent. According to the CIC, the ratio of the judgements of DHC and the Supreme Court were not found to be applicable to the instant case as the Respondent was an officer of the Petitioner organisation and could not be considered as a third party to that case6.
1.7 Approaching the DHC once again, the Petitioner contended that the DPC proceedings contained confidential information about other officers. The Petitioner also contended that the information was exempt from disclosure 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. 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 and that the CIC had not followed third party procedure under Section 11 of the Act. Further, the Petitioner contended that the CIC had not given a finding of public interest in disclosing such exempt information.
2. Judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court with Reasons:
2.1 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court (DHC) set aside the CIC’s order holding: “The information relating to ACRs and grading of an employee are personal to him and in this respect other employees are definitely, not entitled to share that information.”
2.2 In arriving at this decision the DHC observed that this matter had already been decided by the same Court in the matter of THDC India Ltd. vs R. K. Raturi7. The Judge cited the relevant para from that order and noted: “I find no reason to differ from the aforesaid decision. I am also unable to agree with the contention that the matter be remanded back to the CIC for considering it afresh as the conclusion in the case of R. K. Raturi (Supra) is definite. DPC minutes cannot be disclosed except in public interest and that too after following the procedure specified under Sections 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: and 19(4) If the decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, against which an appeal is preferred relates to information of a third party, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to that third party. of the RTI Act.”
3. A Critical Analysis of the Court’s Decision and its Reasoning:
3.1 With the deepest respect to the wisdom of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (DHC) it is submitted that the Court’s finding and the rationale applied are difficult to accept for two reasons:
a) Only some and not all orders of the DHC in similar cases where DPC minutes were the subject of contention, were taken into consideration before arriving at the finding in the instant case; and
b) The examination of the ambit and scope 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. 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. which exempts disclosure of personal information on two grounds, namely, (i) where such disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and (ii) if disclosure is likely to cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual is far from satisfactory.
3.2 Before entering into a detailed analysis of the DHC’s order in the instant case, it is necessary to look at the jurisprudence that had developed on the subject of DPC till date. After the enforcement of all provisions of the RTI Act in October, 2005, several civil servants employed with various public authorities began demanding access to copies of DPC minutes by making formal requests under the new law. As public authorities routinely rejected such requests, the CIC decided to take up the matter while deciding a batch of appeals and complaints relating to access to answer scripts in examinations conducted by educational institutions and State agencies. In the matter of Rakesh Kr. Singh vs Lok Sabha Secretariat and related matters8, the CIC in collegium (5‐Member Bench) decided as follows:
“42. However, insofar as the departmental examinees are concerned or the proceedings of Departmental Promotion Committees are concerned, the Commission tends to take a different view. In such cases, the numbers of examinees are limited and it is necessary that neutrality and fairness are maintained to the best possible extent. Disclosure of proceedings or disclosure of the answer sheets not only of the examinees but also of the other candidates may bring in fairness and neutrality and will make the system more transparent and accountable. The Commission, moreover finds that the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committees or its Minutes are not covered by any of the exemptions provided for under Section 8(1) and, therefore, such proceedings and minutes are to be disclosed….” [emphasis supplied]
3.3 The Gauhati High Court took note of the CIC’s decision and approved its reasoning in 2008 while deciding the matter: State of Manipur and Ors., vs Chief Information Commissioner and Anr 9. The Imphal Bench of the Gauhati High Court observed as follows:
“20. The Full Bench of the Central Information Commission had discussed as to whether "right to information" contemplated in the RTI Act, 2005 also include the right to have a copy of the answer script of the candidate in the recruitment test conducted by the selection committee/DPC for appointment to the different posts under the control of the public authorities in Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Harish Chander, Assistant Director, Lok Sabha Secretariat, Information Cell, Parliament House and the other cases and passed judgment and order dated 23.4.2007 wherein the Full Bench held that in the case of the public examination conducted by institution established by constitution like UPSC or institution established by an enactment by the Parliament or rules having established system as foolproof as that can be and also an inbuilt system of ensuring fair and correct evaluation with proper checks and balances, citizen cannot seek disclosure of the answer script under the RTI Act, 2005. The Full Bench of the Central Information Commission further held that so far as the departmental examinee are concerned or the proceeding of the other DPC are concerned, the disclosure of proceeding or disclosure of answer script not only of the examinee but also of the other candidates may bring in fairness and the neutrality and will make the system more transparent and accountable….
21. As such, the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of the Central Information Commission in the case of Rakesh Kumar Singh (supra) is that the answer script of the examinee in the proceeding of DPC like the present DPC for recruitment of the SI and Jamadar in the Manipur Police Department during November and December, 2006 and also the proceeding of the DPC shall disclose to the examinee and such disclosure may bring in fairness and neutrality and also will make the system more transparent and accountable.” [emphasis supplied]
Neither the CIC’s decision in Rakesh Kr. Singh nor the Gauhati High Court’s approval of the same in State of Manipur case appears to have been brought to the notice of the DHC in the THDC case, as there is no mention of these cases in the judgement presently under analysis.
3.4 In 2013, the DHC ruled in favour of disclosure of DPC minutes in the matter of Union of India vs Pramod Kumar Jain and another related matter10. Two Respondents had sought copies of DPC proceedings specifically in their RTI applications11. As the Respondents had sought copies of all records relating to the promotions of a panel of seven officers from the DPC stage to the stage of the Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC), the Petitioner claimed the protection of‐ a) Section 8(1)(i) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed; which applies to Cabinet papers and b) Article 74(2) of the Constitution under which no court may call into question advice tendered by the Union Ministers to the President of India. The Court brushed aside the argument based on Article 74(2) of the Constitution by referring to an earlier decision of the Court delivered by a Division Bench in a similar matter12. The Court ordered disclosure of the information sought by the Respondents (including DPC minutes) in the following words:
“9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall disclose the approval by ACC to the respondents in terms of the prayer made in the application submitted by them to the CPIO. The information to be made available to the respondents shall also include the reasons for the decision taken by the ACC. The material on the basis of which the said decision was taken, however, need not be disclosed, if it was not sought by the respondents. If, however, they seek such material, it cannot be withheld, after a decision taken by the Council of Ministers is implemented. It is, however, made clear that a Cabinet decision, wherever such decision constitutes advice of Ministers to the President in terms of Article 74 of the Constitution, cannot be accessed under the provisions of the Right to Information Act.” [emphasis supplied]
Although Petitioner did not canvass the exemption 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. 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. before the DHC, it is important to note that the Court did not accept arguments based on constitutional provisions – generally understood as being on a higher pedestal than mere statutory laws – for denying access to DPC minutes and other materials relating to the procedure for deciding upon promotions. As this finding is also not examined in the judgement presently under analysis, it is quite possible that neither party brought it to the notice of DHC during the hearing(s).
3.5 Ironically, in 2011 the Registry of the DHC had itself provided access to records equivalent to DPC minutes held by it, to an applicant under the RTI Act. In the matter of Sureksha Luthra vs the Registrar General, Delhi High Court13, the HC noted as follows:
“9. The Petitioner seeks to also rely upon the manner in which the Delhi High Court had earlier dealt with two such similar cases ‐ Sh. J.L. Kalra and Sh. D.K. Prasad against their supersession. She sought the relevant information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and she was duly supplied the material sought by her. The Petitioner relied upon the same to substantiate her plea that even Sh. J.L. Kalra was earlier ignored but subsequently promoted to the post of Joint Registrar and Mr. D.K. Prasad who was earlier ignored but subsequently promoted to the post of Registrar with seniority and the decision to supersede them by their juniors was reversed. Another case cited by the Petitioner is of Ms.Usha Kiran Gupta which found favors with the Selection Committee vide its Minutes drawn on 23.12.2009. A reading of these Minutes shows that the Selection Committee has noted that a formal benchmark had not been laid for promotion to the posts of Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Joint Registrar. It was noted that henceforth the benchmark for consideration to the posts of Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Joint Registrar would be at least three gradings of 'Very Good' in the ACRs during the preceding five years and those candidates fulfilling this condition of benchmark would be assessed in accordance with the said Rules. It has also been submitted by the Petitioner that while considering the case of Mr. J.L. Kalra, the Selection Committee had, in fact, once again noted the aspect of non‐communication of a down‐grading ACR and the factum of 3 out of 5 ACRs being 'Very Good' entitling him to promotion on the basis of the benchmark.” [emphasis supplied]
Although the committee making recommendations about promotions to higher posts in the DHC is called the Selection Committee, the fact that the administrative side of the Court supplied copies of the proceedings of this Committee which performed functions to the DPC is significant. Peformance grading awarded to other officials was shared with the RTI applicant seemingly without following third party procedure provided for in Section 11 of the RTI Act. It appears that neither Party to the case presently under analysis brought this practice of transparency observed by its own Registry to the notice of the DHC. Whether taking judicial notice of the practice in its own Registry would have persuaded the Court to come to a different conclusion will remain a matter of speculation.
3.6 Further, with the deepest respect to the wisdom of the Court it is submitted that the DHC did not make any definitive pronouncement about the status of DPC minutes under the RTI Act (disclosure or confidentiality) in Arvind Kejriwal and R. K. Raturi. In both cases the DHC remanded the matters back to the CIC for consideration de novo in the same manner as it did with the first matter brought before it by THDC in 201314.
In fact in Arvind Kejriwal the Petitioner had not specifically mentioned DPC in the list of records sought under the RTI Act. The DHC mentioned DPC minutes only in passing in the following words:
“22. Turning to the case on hand, the documents of which copies are sought are in the personal files of officers working at the levels of Deputy Secretary, Joint Secretary, Director, Additional Secretary and Secretary in the Government of India. Appointments to these posts are made on a comparative assessment of the relative merits of various officers by a departmental promotion committee or a selection committee, as the case may be. The evaluation of the past performance of these officers is contained in the ACRs. On the basis of the comparative assessment a grading is given. Such information cannot but be viewed as personal to such officers. Vis‐à‐vis a person who is not an employee of the Government of India and is seeking such information as a member of the public, such information has to be viewed as constituting “third party information”…” [emphasis supplied]
Treating the orders of the Court in Arvind Kejriwal and R. K. Raturi as definitive pronouncements on the confidentiality of DPC minutes is bewildering to say the least.
3.7 Further, in the matter of R. K. Jain15 the RTI applicant namely, the Petitioner, was not an employee who was aggrieved by a decision of the DPC as was the Respondent in the case being analysed presently. He was also a member of the general public as was the Petitioner in Arvind Kejriwal. The DHC gave a finding that the CIC “had not examined the issue “whether larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information sought by the petitioner in this case.” Therefore the matter was remanded back to the CIC. However, in the case presently under analysis, nothing in the order indicates whether the Respondent being a serving employee of the Petitioner Corporation and not a member of the general public advanced public interest arguments in favour of disclosure of which the Court took judicial notice. Nor did the Court venture to examine of its own accord which public interest would be served as did the CIC in Rakesh Kr. Singh and which was approvingly cited by the Gauhati High Court in the State of Manipur case.
3.8 The Court’s direction to the CIC in the its order of 201316 that it examine the claim of the Respondent to the DPC minutes in light of the Supreme Court’s judgement in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande is difficult to comprehend. In that case, the RTI applicant had not sought copies of DPC minutes at all. However one of the queries related to an order of promotion of an employee of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner’s office. According to the facts of the case narrated in that judgement, the CIC ordered that a copy of the promotion order be furnished under the RTI Act. So that record was not in dispute nor did the Supreme Court term the order illegal. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held that information relating to the performance of an employee was a matter between him/her and the employer and a stranger could get copies of such information only after showing how disclosure would be in the larger public interest. This decision has since been cited by public authorities and High Courts to routinely deny access to several categories of information about their officers.
3.9 From the facts of the case narrated in the text of the judgement of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande the RTI applicant appears to have been a member of the general public17 much like the RTI applicants in the Arvind Kejriwal and R. K. Jain cases decided by the DHC. This is another reason why it is respectfully submitted that the DHC’s direction to the CIC to take note of the finding in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande in the case presently under analysis is difficult to comprehend.
3.10 Further, with deepest respect to the wisdom to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is humbly submitted that the finding in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande may be per incuriam as it does not take judicial notice of the findings of the Court in earlier cases about the ambit and scope of the fundamental right to privacy of a person guaranteed under the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. In a catena of judgements ranging from Gobind vs the State of Madhya Pradesh18 in 1970 to Ram Jethmalani & Ors. vs Union of India and Ors.19, in 2011, the Supreme Court has recognised personal intimacies of home, family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, child‐rearing, education, medical condition and health‐related records, bank‐related information, telephone conversation and the right not to be subjected to use of mechanical techniques or chemical substances to extract confessions without prior consent as components of the right to privacy. There was no definitive pronouncement on employment‐related information as being entitled to the protection of personal privacy until the Court’s ruling in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande. In fact, in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, the Court elected to rule on the issue of employment‐related information of a person without reference to the preceding jurisprudence on the ambit and scope of the fundamental right to privacy. More importantly there is no reference in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande to the Court’s finding and definitive ruling in R. Rajagopal alias R. R. Gopal and Anr. vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.20 delivered in 1994 with particular reference to the protection of the privacy available to public officials. In this case the Supreme Court observed as follows:
“28. We may now summarise the broad principles flowing from the above discussion:
(1) The right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a "right to be let alone". A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child bearing and education among other matters. None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent ‐ whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages. Position may, however, be different, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy.
(2) The rule aforesaid is subject to the exception, that any publication concerning the aforesaid aspects becomes unobjectionable if such publication is based upon public records including court records. This is for the reason that once a matter becomes a matter of public record, the right to privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press and media among others. We are, however, of the opinion that in the interest of decency [Article 19(2)] an exception must be carved out to this rule, viz., a female who is the victim of a sexual assault, kidnap, abduction or a like offence should not further be subjected to the indignity of her name and the incident being publicised in press/media.
(3) There is yet another exception to the Rule in (1) above ‐ indeed, this is not an exception but an independent rule. In the case of public officials, it is obvious, right to privacy, or for that matter, the remedy of action for damages is simply not available with respect to their acts and conduct relevant to the discharge of their official duties. This is so even where the publication is based upon facts and statements which are not true, unless the official establishes that the publication was made (by the defendant) with reckless disregard for truth. In such a case, it would be enough for the defendant (member of the press or media) to prove that he acted after a reasonable verification of the facts; it is not necessary for him to prove that what he has written is true. Of course, where the publication is proved to be false and actuated by malice or personal animosity, the defendant would have no defence and would be liable for damages. It is equally obvious that in matters not relevant to the discharge of his duties, the public official enjoys the same protection as any other citizen, as explained in (1) and (2) above…” [emphasis supplied]
The finding in sub‐para #3 above is crystal clear. The right to privacy is simply not available for a public official regards his/her conduct relating to the discharge of official duties. In all other matters a public official enjoys the same level of protection for his/her privacy as other individuals21. This finding was reiterated by the DHC on at least two occasions later on. In the matter of The CPIO, Supreme Court of India Etc. vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal and Anr.22 the DHC observed as follows:
“67. A private citizen’s privacy right is undoubtedly of the same nature and character as that of a public servant. Therefore, it would be wrong to assume that the substantive rights of the two differ. Yet, inherent in the situation of the latter is the premise that he acts for the public good, in the discharge of his duties, and is accountable for them. The character of protection, therefore, afforded to the two classes – public servants and private individuals, is to be viewed from this perspective. The nature of restriction on the right to privacy is therefore of a different order; in the case of private individuals, the degree of protection afforded is greater; in the case of public servants, the degree of protection can be lower, depending on what is at stake. Therefore, if an important value in public disclosure of personal information is demonstrated, in the particular facts of a case, by way of objective material or evidence, furnished by the information seeker, the protection afforded by 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. 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. may not be available; in such case, the information officer can proceed to the next step of issuing notice to the concerned public official, as a “third party” and consider his views on why there should be no disclosure. The onus of showing that disclosure should be made, is upon the individual asserting it; he cannot merely say that as the information relates to a public official, there is a public interest element. Adopting such a simplistic argument would defeat the objective 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. 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. ; Parliamentary intention in carving out an exception from the normal rule requiring no “locus” by virtue of Section 6, in the case of exemptions, is explicit through the non‐obstante clause. [emphasis supplied]
A Full Bench of the DHC reiterated this finding in the matter of Secretary General, Supreme Court of India vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal23 in the following terms:
“114. … The nature of restriction on the right of privacy, however, as pointed out by the learned single Judge, is of a different order; in the case of private individuals, the degree of protection afforded to be greater; in the case of public servants, the degree of protection can be lower, depending on what is at stake. This is so because a public servant is expected to act for the public good in the discharge of his duties and is accountable for them.”
In both cases cited immediately above, the dispute was with regard to the compliance of Judges of the Supreme Court with the Court’s own Resolution regarding disclosure of their assets and liabilities.24 Unlike assets and liabilities declarations which may pertain to a public official’s inherited assets and are therefore eligible for the protection of privacy unless demonstrated otherwise, DPC minutes are completely and unequivocally related to the performance of the officials discharging their official duties. Further, in our humble opinion neither Girish Ramchandra Deshpande nor other orders of the DHC requiring confidentiality of DPC minutes discussed above, contain a convincing argument in favour of affording the protection of privacy to employment‐related information about public officials especially when the requestor himself/herself is a candidate for promotion.
3.11 Further, it must be pointed out that at least one other High Court has supported transparency of DPC minutes containing information about multiple empanelled candidates. The Gauhati High Court found no reason to refuse access to DPC minutes to an aggrieved employee who sought that information under the RTI Act. In the matter of District and Sessions Judge and Anr. vs Shilabhadra Sinha and Ors.,25 the Gauhati High Court ruled as follows:
“12. The ACRs of the Respondent No. 1, apart from containing his personal information required for maintaining his service record, also contains comments/observations of reporting, reviewing and accepting authorities, including the grading awarded by them. In any case, under the law, an employee is entitled to know the comments of such authorities, including the grading awarded by them. The informations in the ACRs being not the 'personal information' within the meaning 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. 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. , the same cannot be with‐held from the Respondent No. 1.
13. Similarly, the DPC proceeding held on 12th and 13th December, 2009 cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be termed as 'personal information' within the meaning 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. 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. On perusal of the records produce before this Court it reveals that pp. 2, 3 and 4(part) of the DPC proceeding pertain to the decision of the DPC relating to promotion to the post of Head Clerk‐cum‐ Accountant. The Petitioner No. 1, by his order dated 15th March, 2009, allowed the Respondent. No. 1 to inspect p. 3 of the proceeding. Page 2 of the said proceeding contains the numbers of existing and likely vacancies that may occur as on 31st May, 2009, the eligibility criteria fixed for promotion and the names of 5 officers who were considered for promotion. Page 3 contains the names of the officers who were considered for promotion as well as the name of the officers of SC/ST/OBC categories. Relevant portion of p. 3 contains the names of other officers who were found suitable for promotion under SC/ST/UR category. When inspection of a major part of the said proceeding, that is, p. 3 of the proceeding, is allowed, there cannot by any reason as to why the p. 2 and part of p. 4 of the relevant proceeding should not be made available to the Respondent No. 1, who has a right to obtain such informations under the provisions of the Act. The Petitioner No. 1 having agreed to allow the Respondent No. 1 to inspect p. 3 of the proceeding, has conceded that such information is not exempted from disclosure under any of the clauses of Section 8 of the Act.” [emphasis supplied]
3.12 Further, since the enforcement of the RTI Act umpteen public officials have obtained DPC minutes to challenge the decisions relating to promotion. Extracts from a few decisions delivered by other High Courts are given below where the Petitioner produced DPC minutes containing information about other empanelled officials after obtaining them under the RTI Act.
1) Ram Niwas Awasthy vs State of M.P., W.P. No. 15164 of 2007, (SB) judgement of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 11/9/201326:
“8. The documents placed on record as Annx. P/21 along with I.A. No. 10473/2009 indicates that the entire proceeding of DPC was made available to the petitioner together with a master chart under Right to Information Act and was duly certified by the Public Information Officer of the department.” [emphasis supplied]
2) Paresh Chandra Sarma vs Pragjyotish Gaonlia Bank and Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 742 of 2005, (SB) judgement of the Gauhati High Court dated 02/09/201327:
“3. Pragjyotish Gaonlia Bank (Bank) is a Regional Rural Bank established under Section 3 of the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976, having its Head Office at Nalbari, United Bank of India is the sponsoring bank. Matters relating to appointment and promotion of officers and staff of Regional Rural Banks are governed by a set of rules called Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1998. Rule 5 provides for determination of the number of vacancies in each category of posts to be filled up by the Board of Directors (Board) in consultation with the sponsoring bank. As per Rule 6, all vacancies determined under Rule 5 shall be filled up by promotion or by direct recruitment in accordance with the provisions contained in the Rules and the third schedule to the Rules. According to the third schedule, recruitment to the post of Officer Scale‐III, which is a group‐A post, shall be 100% by way of promotion. Promotion shall be made on the basis of the criteria "seniority‐cum‐merit". The eligibility criteria prescribed for such promotion is that the candidate should have 7 years service on regular basis in Officer Scale‐II. However, the Board has been empowered with prior approval of the sponsoring bank to relax the qualifying service for a period not exceeding 2 years if eligible officers are not available. Mode of selection prescribed is that selection shall be made by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on the basis of interview and assessment of performance appraisal report for the proceeding five years as a Scale‐II Officer. …
11. Petitioners have filed separate reply affidavits disputing the contention of respondents 1 and 2. In his reply affidavit, Shri Paresh Ch. Sarma has enclosed compilation sheet of the marks secured by the candidates in the interview held on 22‐11‐2004, "seniority‐cum‐merit" list of the candidates and the select list of candidates. The above documents were obtained by the said petitioner pursuant to submission of application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. From the said documents, it is evident that though the two petitioners had secured the minimum qualification marks of 50% in the interview, they were not selected. On the other hand, respondents 3 to 11 were selected and subsequently promoted on the ground that they had secured better marks than the petitioners in the selection. Thus, it is apparent that selection was carried out on the basis of merit only and not by applying the criteria of "seniority‐cum‐merit" as provided under the Rules.” [emphasis supplied]
3) Md. Maznoo Hussain, Sri Damodar Sarma and Sri Mintu Sarma vs State of Assam Represented by the Secretary and Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 43 of 2012, (SB) judgement of the Gauhati High Court dated 30/08/2013:
“19. In their reply affidavit, petitioners have stated that though respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were promoted on the basis of DPC recommendation dated 07‐12‐ 2004, copy of DPC resolution was received by the petitioners only after filing of application dated 13‐07‐2011 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the wife of petitioner No. 1. Thereafter, the writ petition was filed. Therefore, the petitioners contend that there is no delay in filing the writ petition. It is further stated that though petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were placed in category III in the DPC meeting dated 07‐04‐2004, the same was because ACRs of the said petitioners were not placed before the DPC because of which marks based on merit could not be allotted. Therefore, recommendation of DPC is not legally sustainable. It is further stated that respondent Nos. 4 and 6 had got 8 marks as per assessment of DPC which placed them in category III. Therefore, their recommendation by DPC is also illegal. Petitioners have also contended that cadre strength of Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical) is 42. As per Assam Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act, 1978, maximum reservation permissible would be 9, 4 for ST(P), 3 for SC and 2 for ST(H). There cannot be 12 backlog vacancies. Besides the above, petitioners have reiterated their contentions urged in the writ petition. [emphasis supplied]
In none of these judgements did the concerned High Courts question the decisions of the PIOs to disclose the DPC Minutes to the Petitioners under the RTI Act. It is obvious that the Courts found the disclosure helpful for promoting an important public interest, namely, “the administration of justice”. The judicial recognition of the citizens’ fundamental right to information in a catena of decisions delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court since 1975 is premised on this important public interest of administering justice. As there is no dearth of literature on the history of the jurisprudence around the right to information we are not going into the details. That the DHC did not make a reference to the imperative of administering justice as a public interest ground to at least weigh against the other public interest of protecting the privacy of officers is perplexing to say the least.
4. In conclusion:
It must be pointed out that the DHC orders examined above have the effect of creating a class exemption for DPC minutes. Section 8(1) of the RTI Act does not exempt entire categories of documents from disclosure. They are circumstantial exemptions requiring harm tests to be administered in order to determine the effect of disclosure. Further, in the cases discussed above DHC has frequently placed the burden of demonstrating public interest in support of disclosure on the requestor for information. With the deepest respect to the wisdom of the Court it must be pointed out that such a burden is not placed on the requestor in other jurisdictions where the public interest test is incorporated in the RTI laws. It is for the adjudicatory authority such as Information Commission(ers) and Courts to make a determination regarding the public interests would be served by transparency and balancing them against the public interest requiring the information to be kept confidential.28 Last but not the least, going by the definition of the term ‘public records’ contained in Section 2 of the Public Records Act, 1993, DPC minutes are undoubtedly public records29 to which the protection of privacy may not be attracted given the finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. Rajagopal discussed above. This issue requires to be settled through a definitive pronouncement of the Supreme Court in an appropriate case after examining the jurisprudence that has hitherto developed in favour of both disclosure and against it for its correctness. Until then the issue of access to DPC minutes will remain unresolved.
*****
List of cases referred:
Arvind Kejriwal vs CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat, (Delhi High Court), 183 (2011) DLT 662.
District and Sessions Judge and Anr. vs Shilabhadra Sinha and Ors., (Gauhati High Court), (2011) 1 GLR 379.
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs CIC and Anr., (Supreme Court of India), (2012) 9 SCALE 700.
Gobind vs the State of Madhya Pradesh, (Supreme Court of India), AIR 1975 SC 1378.
Md. Maznoo Hussain, Sr Damodar Sarma and Sri Mintu Sarma vs State of Assam Represented by the Secretary and Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 43 of 2012, (Gauhati High Court) judgement dated 30/08/2013.
Paresh Chandra Sarma vs Pragjyotish Gaonlia Bank and Ors., (Gauhati High Court), 2014 (1) GLT 262.
R K Jain vs Union of India, (Delhi High Court), 2012 V AD (Del) 443.
R. Rajagopal alias R. R. Gopal and Anr. vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., (Supreme Court of India), (1994) 6SCC 632.
Rakesh Kr. Singh vs Lok Sabha Secretariat and related matters, (Central Information Commission), Complaint No. CIC/WB/C2006/00223 decision dated 23/04/2007.
Ram Jethmalani and Ors. vs Union of India and Ors., (Supreme Court of India), (2011) 8 SCC
Ram Niwas Awasthy vs State of M.P., (Madhya Pradesh High Court), 2014 (4) MPLJ 102.
Secretary General, Supreme Court of India vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (Delhi High Court), AIR 2010 Delhi 159.
State of Manipur and Ors. vs Chief Information Commissioner and Anr., (Gauhati High Court), 2008 (4) GLT 93.
Sureksha Luthra vs the Registrar General, Delhi High Court, (Delhi High Court), 177 (2011) DLT 319.
THDC India Ltd. vs R. K. Raturi, W. P. (C) 903/2013, (Delhi High Court), judgement dated 08/08/2014.
The CPIO, Supreme Court of India Etc. vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal and Anr., (Delhi High Court), 162 (2009) DLT 135.
Union of India vs Pramod Kumar Jain and another related matter, (Delhi High Court), 205(2013) DLT 613.
1 Analysed and disseminated by Venkatesh Nayak, Programme Coordinator, Access to Information Programme, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI)
2 THDC India Limited vs Smt. T Chandra Biswas, 199 (2013) DLT 284 (Single Bench). This judgement wrongly spells the Respondent’s name. The DHC order presently under analysis and the related CIC decisions refer to the Respondent as Smt. T. Chanda Biswas.
3 (2012) 9 SCALE 700.
4 183 (2011) DLT 662 (Single Bench).
5 2012 V AD (Del) 443 (Single Bench).
6 This summary is based on the facts recounted in the DHC judgement presently under analysis. The decision of the CIC is not accessible on either the CIC’s website or other websites displaying CIC’s decisions.
7 W. P. (C) 903/2013, judgement dated 08/08/2014 (Single Bench).
8 Complaint No. CIC/WB/C2006/00223 decision dated 23/04/2007.
9 2008 (4) GLT 93 (Single Bench).
10 205 (2013) DLT 613 (Single Bench).
11 Ibid., See para #2 for the queries raised in the RTI application.
12 Waris Rashid Kidwai vs Union of India and Ors., (1998) ILR Delhi 589.
13 177 (2011) DLT 319 (Single Bench).
14 Supra f.n. #2.
15 Supra f.n. #5.
16 Supra f.n. #2.
17Strangely this decision of the CIC is not accessible on its own website or on other websites displaying CIC’s decisions.
18 AIR 1975 SC 1378.
19 (2011) 8 SCC 1.
20 (1994) 6SCC 632.
21 As the right to life and liberty under Article 21 is guaranteed to all persons, the right to privacy which is a deemed fundamental right within the scope of that Article is also available to all individuals irrespective of their citizenship status.”
22 162 (2009) DLT 135
23 AIR 2010 Delhi 159.
24 In a unparalleled development, the Registry of the Supreme Court appealed the DHC’s judgement before the same Supreme Court. This matter was referred to a Constitution Bench in 2010. The case remains pending before the Supreme Court as on date.
25 (2011) 1 GLR 379.
26 2014 (4) MPLJ 102.
27 2014 (1) GLT 262.
28 These judgements from foreign jurisdictions will be examined in detail on an appropriate occasion in future. In the present analysis we have found it difficult to agree with the reasoning for invoking exemptions to disclose DPC minutes. The question of examining arguments in favour of disclosure in public interest will arise only when the applicability of the exemption is conceded.
29 “2(e). "public records" includes ‐
i. any document, manuscript and file;
ii. any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document;
iii. any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and any other material produced by a computer or by any other device of any records creating agency;
(f.) "records creating agency" includes, ‐
i. in relation to the Central Government, any ministry, department or office of that Government;
ii. in relation to any statutory body or corporation wholly or substantially controlled or financed by the Central Government or commission or any committee constituted by that Government, the offices of the said body, corporation, commission or committee;
iii. in relation to a Union Territory Administration, any department or office of that Administration;
iv. in relation to any statutory body or corporation wholly or, substantially controlled or financed by Union territory Administration or commission or any committee constituted by that Government, the offices of the said body, corporation, commission or committee;”