Information in r/o wife such as name of dependents and their income, medical re-imbursement details and her present residential address as per office record were denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act - CIC upheld the denial of information
6 Nov, 2024Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.02.2023 seeking the following information:
Smt Anita Kumari, Assistant Section Officer, Employee ID No. A280606, posted at DGQA/COORD Office, at B Block Defence Complex, Africa Avenue, New Delhi. She has have one and half year old child has filed a case against me at Agra Court, Case No. is 953/2022 on 21st April, 2022.I am the spouse of her.
In connection to above mentioned case case I seeking following information under RTI Act, 2005.
1. Complete Office Address of Anita Kumari, ASO where, she is currently posted.
2. Name of depends on Anita Kumari as per depends details submitted by her from 2012 to 2023.
3. Has Anita Kumari submitted their depends resident and Income proof, if yes, Copy of Income and Resident proof of their depends from 2012 to 2023.
4. Anita Kumari current Pay Level, Basic and Gross Pay and copy of Salary Slip for the month of January, 2023.
5. Details of medical reimbursement bills claimed by Anita Kumari from January, 2012 to December, 2022 along with copies of medical bills.
6. Earlier, Anita Kumari, as SSA, was posted in the office of (OA &R/OPF), Sena Bhawan, New Delhi. Where she carried smart mobile with them at work place and in defence premises. Had she have any permission to carry smart mobile in work place, if yes, copy of permission letter.
7. Anita Kumari, ASO, posted in DGQA/COORD Office, at B Block Defence Complex, Africa Avenue, New Delhi is caring smart mobile with them at work place and in defence premises. Has she have any permission to carry smart mobile in work place, if yes, copy of permission letter.
8. She was earlier residing at Flat No. F1, Block -F, Ved Vihar, Loni Gaziabad from 2018 to March, 2022 and presently she is not residing there. What is her present residence address as per office record.”
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 22.03.2023 stating as under:
“(a) Point 1. The information sought for has no relationship to any public activity or interest and also involves third party. Hence the same is exempt from disclosure 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. 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.
(b) Points 2 to 8. It is informed that the information sought by the applicant vide these points does not pertain to this office. It is also informed that the RTI application wrt these points has already been transferred to concerned CPIOS/ Public authority by Nodal Officer (SAO, CAO/Coord & CPIO) via web portal of 'RTI MIS'.”
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.04.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 02.05.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Shri Birendra Singh, CPIO-cum-Deputy Director and Ms. Indu Balaji, Senior Administrative Officer-cum-CPIO, attended the hearing in person.
The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
The Respondent submitted that information in respect of point No. 1 and 4 of the RTI Application has already been provided to the Appellant through online mode on 14.03.2023. Further, the information sought by the Appellant in point No. 2, 3 and 5 of the RTI Application is personal information of third party which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. He added that with respect to point No. 6 and 7 of the RTI Application, the Appellant is seeking information based on assumptions which is not covered under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 18.09.2024, wherein the Commission has been informed as under:
“Information sought at point No. 2 and 3 are related to actual number of dependent on Smt. Anita Kumari. To produce correct number of dependents before Hon'ble Court, these information are required. It is also submitted that Smt. Anita Kumari, misleading many authority and even the Hon'ble Courts, on giving false Affidavit and declaration that she is residing in a government quarter at 173, Road No. 4, Andrews Ganj, Delhi and the quarter is presently under her possession. On verification of her salary slip it is found that House Rent Allowance still has been paid in its salary, If she residing at a government quarter, why House rent allowance paid to her, this is directly related to public money.
2. Information sought at point No.5 It is submitted that Smt. Anita Kumari had claimed medical bills reimbursement during the period 2020 and 2021 and a many bills were paid by me. Copies of these bills and confirmation of reimbursement are required to submit in the Hon'ble courts. It is submitted that this information sought were not come under the 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. of RTI, Act, 2005, as bills were paid by me.
3. Information sought at point No.6 & 7, were are relative to negligence of security guidelines by Anita Kumari. Smt. Anita Kumari, ASO has not take defence security and advisory seriously and carry smart mobile with herself at work place. I objected on breach of security advisory and guidelines and asked how she passed all security check points with smart mobile. To suppressed my voice, she has filed a many false allegation/ complaint letters to my office and before others authority. It is a breach of security advisory and guidelines, kindly give the copy of order or remarks whether she had have any permission to carry smart mobile at work place.”
A written submission has been received from Shri Birendra Singh, CPIO-cum-Deputy Director, vide letter dated 18.09.2024, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
SUBMISSION BY THE RESPONDENT
7. With respect to the RTI application and reply thereon following is submitted:-
(a) An RTI application dated 14 Feb 2023 was received from Shri Sunil Kumar seeking information in r/o his wife Smt. Anita Kumari, ASO about her office address, name of dependents, present pay, medical re-imbursement details and her present residential address etc.
(b) Information sought in questions 1 & 4 regarding office address and pay details in respect of Smt. Anita Kumari, ASO has already been provided through online mode dated 14 Mar 2023.
(c) Information sought in questions 2.3.5 & 8 was personal information in r/o Smt. Anita Kumari, therefore consent of Smt. Anita Kumari, ASO was sought before disclosing the information to the applicant. However, Smt. Anita Kumari has denied to provide her personal information. Therefore, the information sought was not provided as the Information sought for falls under the expression "personal information" disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and may cause unwarranted invasion of privacy 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. 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 RTI Act 2005.
(d) Questions 6 & 7 were allegation/assumption based questions and no information regarding this is available at this office.
8. Submitted for kind consideration of Hon'ble Information Commissioner.”
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Respondent has provided a suitable reply in terms of the RTI Act to the Appellant. In these types of matrimonial dispute cases, only information which can be provided under the RTI Act is information pertaining to Gross Income/Net Income which has already been provided by the Respondent to the Appellant on 14.03.2023. Hence, no further relief can be given to the Appellant under the provisions of RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Information Commissioner
Citation: Sunil Kumar v. Office of the Joint Secretary & CAO, Defence Offices Complex, File No: CIC/DODEF/A/2023/125256; Date of Decision : 03.10.2024