Information relating to the implementation of directives issued by Supreme Court in “Vishakha Judgment” related to sexual harassment of women employees at workplace - CIC: names of employees against whom complaint have been filed is exempt u/s 8(1)(j)
12 Mar, 2014Information relating to the implementation of directives issued by Supreme Court in “Vishakha Judgment” related to sexual harassment of women employees at workplace - CIC: denial of names of the employees against whom the complaint of Sexual Harassment of Women employee at work places has been filed 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. upheld
Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri Vipul Bihari, has submitted RTI application dated 02 January 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi; seeking information relating to the implementation of directives issued by Hon. Supreme Court in “Vishakha Judgment” related to sexual harassment of women employees at workplace through total of 16 points.
2. Vide order dated 15 January 2013, CPIO furnished the pointwise information to the appellant except on point no. 5, which had been 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, 2005. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred appeal to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) dated 14 February 2013. Vide order dated 25 March 2013, the FAA furnished pointwise reply of the points raised in the appeal.
3. Being aggrieved and not satisfied by the above response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard today. The appellant, Shri Vipul Bihari was not present at the hearing. The respondents, Shri Ved Prakash, Dy. General Manager, Sh. V.V. Mohlla, Manager, Sh. Pradeep Srivastava, CPIO/RO, Ms Smita Srivastava, Manager & Ms Meenakshi Talwar, Chief Manager were present and made submissions in person.
5. The CPIO submitted that the information as available including the Office Order regarding the guidelines to prevent Sexual Harassment of Women employee at work places dated 31/1/2011 has been provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 15/1/2013. Further additional information as per the FAAO has been provided by the CPIO, Ambala RO vide letter dated 17/4/2013.
6. Information regarding the names of the employees against whom the complaint of Sexual Harassment of Women employee at work places has been filed may not be provided as per Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision Notice
7. The Commission upholds the CPIO and FAA decision in the present case as the information as held by them has been provided within the time period as mentioned in the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the Commission upholds the stand taken by the CPIO in point no 6(h) of the RTI application as the disclosure of the same attracts Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. 8. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed and case is closed.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Vipul Bihari v. OICL in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000637/MP