[RTI v. Right to Privacy] CIC | Under what circ*mstances exemption of S. 8(1)(j) of RTI Act be claimed? Commission explains the provision in respect to invasion of privacy | SCC Times (2024)

Central Information Commission (CIC): Amita Pandove (Information Commissioner) while addressing the present second appeal observed that the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act can only be claimed when the information sought relates to the personal information of a third party.

Information Sought

Appellant had sought certified copies of the delivery sheet of the article/ registered speed post letter along with the date and time and name of the postman who delivered the same to the concerned authorities.

CPIO denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 talks about Exemption from disclosure of information

(j) informationwhich relatestopersonalinformationthedisclosureofwhich has no relationshiptoany public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasionofthe privacyofthe individual unless the Central PublicInformationOfficer or the State PublicInformationOfficer or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies thedisclosureofsuchinformation:

Provided that theinformationwhich cannot be deniedtothe Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be deniedtoany person.

On being dissatisfied, the first appeal was sought and on the ground of unsatisfactory reply in the first appeal from the respondent, Second Appeal was filed under Section 19 of the RTI Act.

Section 19: Appeal

(1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section(1) or clause (a) of sub-section(3) ofSection7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central PublicInformationOfficer or State PublicInformationOfficer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer anappealtosuch officer who is senior in ranktothe Central PublicInformationOfficer or State PublicInformationOfficer as the case may be, in each public authority:

Provided that such officer may admit theappealafter the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing theappealin time.

(2) Where anappealis preferred against an order made by a Central PublicInformationOfficer or a State PublicInformationOfficer, as the case may be, underSection11todisclose third-partyinformation, theappealby the concerned third party shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order.

(3) A secondappealagainst the decision under sub-section(1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the CentralInformationCommission or the StateInformationCommission:

Provided that the CentralInformationCommission or the StateInformationCommission, as the case may be, may admit theappealafter the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing theappealin time.

(4) If the decision of the Central PublicInformationOfficer or State PublicInformationOfficer, as the case may be, against which anappealis preferred relatestoinformationof a third party, the CentralInformationCommission or StateInformationCommission, as the case may be, shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heardtothat third party.

(5) In anyappealproceedings, the onustoprove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central PublicInformationOfficer or State PublicInformationOfficer, as the case may be, who denied the request.

(6) Anappealunder sub-section(1) or sub-section(2) shall be disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of theappealor within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasonstobe recorded in writing.

(7) The decision of the CentralInformationCommission or StateInformationCommission, as the case may be, shall be binding.

(8) In its decision, CentralInformationCommission or StateInformationCommission, as the case may be, has the powerto—

(a) require the public authoritytotake any such steps as may be necessarytosecure compliance with the provisions of thisAct, including—

(i) by providing accesstoinformation, if so requested, in a particular form;

(ii) by appointing a Central PublicInformationOfficer or State PublicInformationOfficer, as the case may be;

(iii) by publishing certaininformationor categories ofinformation;

(iv) by making necessary changestoits practices in relationtothe maintenance, management and destruction of records;

(v) by enhancing the provision of training on therighttoinformationfor its officials;

(vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section(1) ofSection4;

(b) require the public authoritytocompensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;

(c) impose any of the penalties provided under thisAct;

(d) reject the application.

(9) The CentralInformationCommission or StateInformationCommission, as the case may be, shall give notice of its decision, including anyrightofappeal,tothe complainant and the public authority.

(10) The CentralInformationCommission or StateInformationCommission, as the case may be, shall decide theappealin accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed.

Decision

Commission observed that an appropriate reply has not been furnished to the appellant.

Exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act

Further, it was noted that the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act can only be claimed when the information sought relates to the personal information of a third party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third party.

In the present matter, the bench noted that the information sought was not the personal information of a third party, hence exemption Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act would not be applicable in the present case.

While disposing of the present appeal and considering the above-noted facts, along with the fact that RTI Act supersedes any departmental rules, the Commission directed the respondent to furnish due information to the appellant. [S. Muthumalai v. CPIO, 2020 SCC OnLine CIC 946, decided on 17-09-2020]

Related