Photocopies of remuneration bills of Exams - bills would reveal the identity of the officials associated with examinations - disclosure would endanger their physical safety and is exempt u/s 8(1)(g) - denial upheld citing Aditya Bandopadhyay case of SC
29 Aug, 2013FACTS
1. Vide RTI dt 11.7.12, appellant had sought photocopies of the remuneration bills of regular and NCWEB Exams of MA(English).
2. CPIO vide letter dt 30.7.12 informed the appellant that photocopies for the bills of examinations would reveal the identity of the officials associated with the examinations under reference and disclosure of such information would endanger their physical safety. As such the information was denied u/s 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; of the RTI Act.
3. An appeal was filed on 13.8.12.
4. AA vide order dt 18.9.12, upheld the decision of the CPIO.
5. Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard. Appellant submitted that he wanted names of the examiners involved in the English exams as also the amount paid to them. CPIO submitted that the provision of names of examiners would constitute danger to their personal security and hence information was denied u/s 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; of the RTI Act. CPIO further added that he is willing to provide total amount of expenditure incurred in respect of these exams. The appellant however expressed that he wanted names of the examiners along with amounts paid to them.
DECISION
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Bandopadhyay had very clearly observed that the names of examiners, scrutinizers, coordinators and Head Examiner are exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; of the RTI Act on the ground that if such information is disclosed, it may endanger their physical safety. In the light of the above, the Commission concurs with the decision of the CPIO/AA. The appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rajiv Mathur)
Central Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Harbhajan Singh v. University of Delhi in File No.CIC/RM/A/2013/000353