Delhi High Court
Shri Harish Kumar vs Provost Marshal-Cum-Appellate ... on 30 March, 2012
Author: A.K.Sikri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30th March, 2012
+ LPA 253/2012
SHRI HARISH KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. C.Hari Shankar & Mr. S. Sunil,
Advs.
Versus
PROVOST MARSHAL-CUM-APPELLATE
AUTHORITY & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. B.V. Niren, CGSC with Mr.
Utkarsh Sharma & Mr. Prasouk Jain,
Adv. for UOI
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
JUDGMENT
A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
1. This Intra-Court appeal impugns the order dated 27th January, 2012 of
the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No. 554/2012 preferred by the
appellant. The said writ petition was preferred assailing the order dated 14 th
September, 2011 of the Central Information Commission (CIC) dismissing
the appeal preferred by the appellant.
2. The appellant had sought the following information under the Right
to Information Act, 2005 with respect to his father-in-law:-
a. Name of the Office/Battalion/Regiment from where he retired?
b. On which date he was retired?
c. What is his pension?
d. As per records, of which caste he belongs?
e. Please provide me the photocopy of his caste certificate?
3. At this stage, it may be stated that there are disputes between the
appellant and his wife.
4. The Central Public Information Officer (PIO) vide order dated 3 rd
December, 2010 informed the appellant that the information sought was a
third party personal information, disclosure whereof was likely to cause
undue invasion into the privacy of the individual concerned and the
information also did not serve any public activity or interest and was
therefore exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act. The
appellant was further informed that the information could be provided to the
appellant subject to consent of third party i.e. his father-in-law and after
following the procedure prescribed under Section 11(1) of the Act. The
appellant was thus requested to provide postal address of his father-in-law,
for the procedure under Section 11(1) to be followed.
5. The appellant however instead of providing address of his father-in-
law, preferred an appeal. The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated
18th January, 2011 directing third party procedure under Section 11(1) to be
followed, upon compliance by the appellant of the requisite formalities.
6. The appellant however was not wanting the said third party procedure
to be followed and wanted the information, though pertaining to his father-
in-law, but without his father-in-law having any chance to object to the
disclosure of the said information. The appellant with the said intent
preferred the second appeal to the CIC. The CIC however dismissed the said
appeal.
7. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition observing
that the information sought was of personal nature and the appellant was
unable to disclose any public interest in the disclosure thereof and disclosure
of information sought by the appellant was to wreck vengeance on account
of his matrimonial dispute.
8. The counsel for the appellant before us has argued that the learned
Single Judge has erred in observing that there was no public interest in the
disclosure sought by the appellant. It is argued that the same is irrelevant
under the RTI Act.
9. What we find in the present case is that the PIO had not refused the
information. All that the PIO required the appellant to do was, to follow
third party procedure. No error can be found in the said reasoning of the
PIO. Under Section 11 of the Act, the PIO if called upon to disclose any
information relating to or supplied by a third party and which is to be treated
as confidential, is required to give a notice to such third party and is to give
an opportunity to such third party to object to such disclosure and to take a
decision only thereafter.
10. There can be no dispute that the information sought by the appellant
was relating to a third party and supplied by a third party. We may highlight
that the appellant also wanted to know the caste as disclosed by his father-
in-law in his service record. The PIO was thus absolutely right in, response
to the application for information of the appellant, calling upon the appellant
to follow the third party procedure under Section 11. Reliance by the PIO on
Section 8 (1) (j) which exempts from disclosure of personal information and
the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest
and which would cause unwanted invasion of the privacy of the individual
was also apposite. Our constitutional aim is for a casteless society and it
can safely be assumed that the disclosure made by a person of his or her
caste is intended by such person to be kept confidential. The appellant
however as aforesaid, wanted to steal a march over his father-in-law by
accessing information, though relating to and supplied by the father-in-law,
without allowing his father-in-law to oppose to such request.
11. A Division Bench of this Court in Paardarshita Public Welfare
Foundation Vs. UOI AIR 2011 Del. 82, in the context of Section 8(1)(j)
(supra) and relying upon Gobind Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975) 2
SCC 148, Rajagopal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 6 SCC 632 and
Collector Vs. Canara Bank (2005) 1 SCC 496 has held right to privacy to
be a sacrosanct facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was further
held that when any personal information sought has no nexus with any
public activity or interest, the same is not to be provided. Finding the
information sought in that case to be even remotely having no relationship
with any public activity or interest and rather being a direct invasion in
private life of another, information was denied. The full bench of this Court
also in Secretary General, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra
Agarwal AIR 2010 Del. 159 has held that the conflict between the right to
personal privacy and public interest in the disclosure of personal
information is recognized by the legislature by incorporating Section 8(1)(j)
of the Act. It was further observed that personal information including tax
returns, medical records etc. cannot be disclosed unless the bar against
disclosure is lifted by establishing sufficient public interest in disclosure and
disclosure even then can be made only after duly notifying the third party
and after considering his views. It was yet further held that the nature of
restriction on right to privacy is of 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 upon what is at
stake; this is so because a public servant is expected to act for public good in
the discharge of his duties and is accountable for them. This Court in Vijay
Prakash Vs. UOI AIR 2010 Del 7 also, where information of an estranged
wife's service record was sought, held that the transparency values have to
be reconciled with legal interest protected by law, such as other fundamental
rights, particularly the fundamental right to privacy; relying on O.K. Ghosh
Vs. Ex. Joseph MANU/SC/0362/1962 it was held that an individual does
not forfeit his fundamental rights by becoming a public servant; that a
distinction has to be drawn between official information and private
information and private details of date of birth, Personal Identification
Number etc. are to be disclosed only if such disclosure is necessary for
providing knowledge of proper performance of the duties and tasks assigned
to the public servant; not finding any public interest in the disclosure of
information sought, the order of the CIC denying the information was
upheld.
12. We are even otherwise pained to find that the provisions of the RTI
Act are being used for personal vendetta and owing whereto the PIOs are
under huge load and strain.
13. We thus do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed.
We refrain from imposing any costs on the appellant.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
MARCH 30, 2012
'pp'
