Bombay High Court
The Central Public Information ... vs The Central Information ... on 6 September, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/10690/2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10690 OF 2017
THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
AURANGABAD
VERSUS
THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Chaudhary K.B.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: September 06, 2017
...
PER COURT :-
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the direction dated
17.7.2017 issued by respondent No.1, directing the petitioner to
submit the details about the salary /PF accumulations of the wife
to respondent No.2 herein, who is litigating against his estranged
wife.
2. The strenuous submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that no public interest is involved in the
information sought by the second respondent / husband in
relation to the earnings of the wife. Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j)
of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RI Act) would absolve the
petitioner from submitting any information to the said husband.
WP/10690/2017
Reliance is placed on the judgment delivered by the Delhi High
Court in the matter of Vijay Prakash Vs. Union of India and
others [AIR 2010 Delhi 7], especially paragraph Nos. 20 to
23.12.2013.
3. It is strenuously contended that the EPF Account holder
under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 is the wife of respondent No.2. She is
employed in Aditya Birla Minacs World Wide Limited. The
details of her PF account have been supplied by the husband
including the account number, establishment id and the name of
the employee. What is sought is an information regarding the
account statement of her PF accumulation.
4. Shri Choudhary strenuously submits that no public
interest is involved and the husband cannot seek this information
as his case is covered by Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RI Act.
5. Having considered his submissions and having gone
through the judgment cited, it needs mention that the husband is
litigating against his estranged wife. In the ongoing litigation,
with the intention of defending himself before the District Court,
the husband moved the petitioner for seeking information as
WP/10690/2017
regards the PF accumulations of his wife. By a cryptic order
dated 19.5.2016, which does not contain reasons, except that the
information sought is not required in public interest under
Section 8(1)(e), his application was rejected.
6. The first appellate authority by order dated 15.7.2016,
again by a cryptic and unreasoned order, rejected the application
of the husband under Section 8(1)(e) claiming that no public
interest is involved. By the order dated 17.7.2017, the Central
Information Commission has allowed the appeal of the husband
and has concluded that the information sought is personal
information and it needs to be supplied.
7. Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RI Act reads as under:-
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-
(a) .....................
(b) .....................
(c) .....................
(d) .....................
(e) information available to a person in
his fiduciary relationship, unless the
competent authority is satisfied that the
WP/10690/2017
larger public interest warrants the disclosure
of such information;
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j) 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."
8. Information available to a person in his fiduciary
relationship can be withheld. There is no fiduciary relationship
between a husband and his wife. Section 8(1)(e) would
therefore, not entitle the petitioner for withholding the
information regarding PF accumulation.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed Section
WP/10690/2017
8(1)(j) by contending that there would be no obligation on the
petitioner to give any citizen any information which relates to
the relationship or privacy of an individual as it would cause
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
10. The Delhi High Court was dealing with the information
being sought by a husband in relation to his wife, who was an
employee of the Indian Air Force. The said information was
sought under Section 8(1)(j) and that was in relation to her
services with the Indian Air Force. The Air Vice Marshall of the
Indian Air Force, who was the designated appellate authority,
refused to supply the information sought as it was, firstly, not in
public interest and secondly, it was in relation to her service with
the Indian Air Force. On the basis of the 'public interest
argument' of the husband, the information pertaining to her
service with the Indian Air Force was not supplied as the same
could not have been used in a private dispute.
11. In the instant case, the husband is seeking information
with regard to his wife, specifically in relation to a private
dispute, which is said to be under the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It also cannot be ignored that in
matters of statutory contributions under acts like the Payment of
WP/10690/2017
Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Employees' Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ("1952 Act"), a nominee of
the employee has to be stated. This indicates that the husband
or wife in their inter se relations, could be a nominee of the
partner who is in employment.
12. Though this information is not before this Court, the
contention of the petitioner will have to be tested as to whether
the said contention could be referable to Section 8(1)(e) or 8(1)
(j) contending that personal information cannot be disclosed to a
citizen if it is not in public interest. The claimant / husband
cannot be termed as a third party citizen. He is the husband of
the employee, whose PF details are being sought. The
petitioner's case, within the framework of Section 8(1)(e), fails.
13. Section 8(1)(j) was never canvassed by the petitioner
before any of the authorities below, except in this Court for the
first time. I am considering the submissions of the petitioner
even under Section 8(1)(j) since law need not be pleaded.
14. Testing the case of the petitioner under Section 8(1)(j),
the petitioner would not be obliged to give any information to an
unrelated citizen if it causes unwarranted invasion on the privacy
WP/10690/2017
of an individual.
15. The Honourable Apex Court in the matter of Bihar Public
Service Commission Vs. Saiyed Hussain [2012 (13) SCC 61], has
considered Section 8 and has concluded that the Act provides for
a free access to information with the object of making
governance more transparent and accountable. Information
sought is normally to be supplied unless the right to information
is subjected to inbuilt restriction within the Statute itself. The
right to information would not be an uncontrolled right and the
constitutional limitation enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution of India would have to be balanced with the right to
privacy. The authority withholding information has to apply it's
mind and form an objective opinion.
16. It is further held in the Bihar PSC case (supra) that
fiduciary relationship refers to a person having the duty to act for
the benefit of another, showing good faith and candour when
such other person reposes complete trust and special confidence
in a person discharging duties. Disclosure of personal
information could be restricted so as to avoid unwarranted
invasion of the privacy of an individual by supplying information
to a third party.
WP/10690/2017
17. In the matter of R.K.Jain Vs. Union of India [2013 (14)
SCC 794], the Honourable Apex Court concluded that the
authority has to decide whether confidential information could
be disclosed to a third person. It also has to consider whether
such disclosure would amount to the invasion of the privacy of a
public servant. It is the prerogative of the competent authority to
decide whether the disclosure of such information would open
gates of privacy to a third party.
18. It cannot be lost sight of in this case that the relation
between the person seeking information of the lady, who is
employed in a private company, is that of a husband and wife.
On account of a marital discord, the wife has dragged the
husband before the District Court. For the purposes of his
litigation, the husband requires the information about the salary
and provident fund accumulations of the wife. Such information
could also be acquired by the husband by making an application
before the District Court. Rather than perpetuating the hardships
of the husband, the CIC has found it fit to direct the petitioner to
disclose the said information.
19. In this backdrop, it is imperative that the petitioner must
WP/10690/2017
first come to a conclusion, either under sub-clauses (e) or (j) of
Section 8(1) that the information is confidential and cannot be
disclosed. It is only when the competent authority justifies the
non-disclosure under the first part of sub-clauses (e) or (j) that
that the second part in the said sub-clauses would have to be
considered to the extent of whether the information is required
to be disclosed in larger public interest. In my view, the
petitioner has failed in the first place to justify it's refusal to
disclose the information. The husband seeking information
cannot be said to be a stranger or a third party. The information
sought by him also cannot be said to be confidential.
20. In my view, if matrimonial matters are being prosecuted
by the parties, there should not be any embargo on divulging the
PF accumulations of the wife since the said information is sought
by the husband to be placed before the District Court. It also
cannot be ignored that the wife is not before this Court and has
not challenged the impugned order.
21. Considering the above, I do not find that the stand taken
by the petitioner would fall either under Section 8(1)(e) or
Section 8(1)(j).
WP/10690/2017
22. This petition being devoid of merits is, therefore,
dismissed.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
