Information regarding enquiry against the Director, IIM, Indore was denied u/s 8(1)(j) on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are personal information having no relationship to any public activity/interest - CIC: denial upheld
30 Jun, 2014FACTS
Vide RTI dt 14.7.13, appellant had sought information on 8 points relating to enquiry against Dr N.Ravichandran, Director, IIM, Indore.
2. CPIO vide letter dt 26.8.13, denied the information u/s 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. on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are personal information having no relationship to any public activity/interest.
3. An appeal was filed on 9.9.13.
4. Submissions made by public authority were heard. It was submitted that the first appeal stated to have been sent by the appellant dt 9.9.13 was not received by them, though a copy was sent to the Commission. Hence, FAA could not provide a response. In the absence of the appellant, his views could not be ascertained.
DECISION
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande dated October 3, 2012 has observed that the performance of an employee/officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the CPIO is satisfied that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.
6. The above directions are applicable to the present appeal and as no larger public interest is involved, the denial of information u/s 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 is upheld. The appeal is disposed of.
(Rajiv Mathur)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Vinay Nalawala v. Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad in File No.CIC/RM/A/2014/000127