W.P.No.20459 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.20459 of 2014
D.Vinayagam ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Central Information Commissioner,
Central Information Commission,
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi - 110 067.
2.The General Manager (Operation) & CPIO BSNL,
Office of the Chief General Manager,
Chennai Telephones,
78, Purasawalkam High Road,
Chennai - 600 010.
3.Shri.A.Subramanian,
Chief General Manager & Appellate Authority,
Chennai Telephones,
78, Purasawalkam High Road,
Chennai - 600 010. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
W.P.No.20459 of 2014
records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in
CIC/BS/A/2013/000156/4471 dated 31-01-2014 and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondent to pay compensation for the delay caused in
furnishing information and cost of the proceedings to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : No appearance
For Respondents :
For R1 : Mr.M.Karthikeyan
For R2 & R3 : Mr.Sri.R.Harishankar
ORDER
There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the first respondent/Central Information Commissioner, dated 31.01.2014 bearing File No.CIC/BS/A/2013/000156/4471.
3. The case of the petitioner appears to be that the petitioner had filed RTI application on 31.10.2011 before the Public Information Officer and that the said application was disposed by the second respondent on 21.12.2011.
The petitioner appears to have sought for information relating to call details of petitioner's wife between 01.05.2008 to 08.01.2009, and the details of incoming and outgoing calls for the numbers specified in the application for the same https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/10 W.P.No.20459 of 2014 period. The petitioner had also sought for reasons as to why the petitioner's wife had disconnected the land line number given therein.
4.The Public Information Officer rejected the application against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, i.e, the third respondent herein. The third respondent passed order dated 16.01.2012 and rejected the request of the petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a second appeal in SA/UG/12/66641wr2 before the first respondent on 19.12.2012, which has culminated in the impugned order.
5. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:-
"The appellant stated that he has sought the CDR of his wife when they were living together and also a copy of the application submitted by her for disconnecting the landline but the respondents have not provided the information. The CPIO's representative stated that the information relates to a third party and they had carried out the process as outlined under Section 11 of the RTI Act but Smt.Aruna has objected to the disclosure. He argued that the information is personal in nature and no public purpose is involved and hence, exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The appellant stated that the respondent never informed him that they had carried out the process as per Section 11 of the RTI Act. He further stated that the information was denied simply quoting Section 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act.
Decision notice:
Under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, there is no obligation on the PIO to give personal information, the disclosure of which https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/10 W.P.No.20459 of 2014 has no relationship with any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the PIO is satisfied that the disclosure of such information is justified in larger public interest.
The CDR of Smt.Aruna and copy of the application submitted by her for disconnecting her telephone are in the nature of personal information. The appellant has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought is for larger public purpose. Hence, exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The matter is closed."
6. The question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for information regarding the calls made by the petitioner's wife during the aforesaid period and the details of the calls received by the petitioner's wife and the reasons for disconnecting the land line number.
7. It appears that the petitioner and the petitioner and his wife were estranged and therefore the petitioner sought for information from the respondents under the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
8. A reading of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act indicates that 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/10 W.P.No.20459 of 2014 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."
9. Section 8 of the RTI Act on the other hand contemplates exemption from disclosure of information. For the purpose of the present writ petition, a reference may be made to the exemption under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which are reproduced below:-
Section 8(1)(e) Section 8(1)(j) 8(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen
(e) information available to a (j) information which relates to person in his fiduciary relationship, personal information the unless the competent authority is disclosure of which has no satisfied that the larger public relationship to any public activity interest warrants the disclosure of or interest, or which would cause such information. unwarranted invasion of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/10 W.P.No.20459 of 2014 Section 8(1)(e) Section 8(1)(j) 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.
10. A reading of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act makes it clear that the 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 an individual is exempted from disclosure. 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 such disclosure of such information, there cannot be any compulsion for disclosure. Therefore, there is no merits in the present writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/10 W.P.No.20459 of 2014
11. That apart, scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is confined only to the decision making process and not to the decision as such and therefore, the review against the order passed by the second respondent as Second Appellate Authority herein is also not available.
12. Further, the Delhi High Court in Vijay Prakash Vs Union of India (UOI) and others, AIR 2010 Delhi 7, while dealing with a somewhat similar circumstances, rejected the request of the petitioner therein. In this connection, a reference is made to Paragraph 22 of the order, which reads as under:-
"22. A private individual's right to privacy is undoubtedly of the same order 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, which is afforded to the two classes - public servants and private individuals, has 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, the protection afforded by Section 8(1)(j) 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/10 W.P.No.20459 of 2014 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 object of Section 8(1)(j); the legislative 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. The court is also unpersuaded by the reasoning of the Bombay High Court, which appears to have given undue, even overwhelming deference to Parliamentary privilege (termed "plenary" by that court) in seeking information, by virtue of the proviso to Section 8(1)(j). Were that the true position, the enactment of Section 8(1)(j) itself is rendered meaningless, and the basic safeguard bereft of content. The proviso has to be only as confined to what it enacts, to the class of information that Parliament can ordinarily seek; if it were held that all information relating to all public servants, even private information, can be accessed by Parliament, Section 8(1)(j) would be devoid of any substance, because the provision makes no distinction between public and private information. Moreover there is no law which enables Parliament to demand all such information; it has to be necessarily in the context of some matter, or investigation. If the reasoning of the Bombay High Court were to be accepted, there would be nothing left of the right to privacy, elevated to the status of a fundamental right, by several judgments of the Supreme Court."
13. In my view, the information sought for by the petitioner is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and therefore cannot be disclosed.
Therefore, even on merits, there is no case made out for interference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/10 W.P.No.20459 of 2014
14. Under these circumstances, I am inclined to dismiss this Writ Petition and accordingly this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
07.09.2022 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order arb To
1.The Central Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission, Club Building (Near Post Office), Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110 067.
2.The General Manager (Operation) & CPIO BSNL, Office of the Chief General Manager, Chennai Telephones, 78, Purasawalkam High Road, Chennai - 600 010.
3.Shri.A.Subramanian, Chief General Manager & Appellate Authority, Chennai Telephones, 78, Purasawalkam High Road, Chennai - 600 010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/10 W.P.No.20459 of 2014 C.SARAVANAN, J.
arb W.P.No.20459 of 2014 07.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/10