Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Sri. P. Ramakrishnan
  • Sri. Shaji P. Chaly
Judges
  • P.R Raman
  • A.C.J
  • C.N Ramachandran Nair, J.
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Sri. P. Ramakrishnan
  • Sri. Shaji P. Chaly
Judges
  • P.R Raman
  • A.C.J
  • C.N Ramachandran Nair, J.
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Summary of Judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant is a State Government agency engaged in earth science studies. The first respondent, a Scientist employed by the appellant, sought information from the appellant's Information Officer: (a) copies of certain documents produced in a domestic enquiry against another employee, and (b) entries in the Confidential Reports of six other employees. The Information Officer rejected the application. The first respondent's appeals to the State Information Commission were allowed, directing disclosure. The appellant challenged those orders by filing multiple Writ Petitions before the Single Judge, which were dismissed by a common judgment. Several appeals followed; two were withdrawn, leaving three appeals now under consideration: two challenging disclosure of Confidential Reports of six Scientists, and one challenging disclosure of documents from a domestic enquiry. The court heard counsel for the appellant, Standing Counsel for the State Information Commission, and counsel for the first respondent.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the information sought falls within the exemption in Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (information available to a person in a fiduciary relationship).
  2. Whether the information sought falls within the exemption in Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (personal information the disclosure of which has no relation to any public activity or would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy), and if so, whether larger public interest justifies disclosure.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

  • Claimed immunity from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) and Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
  • Relied on the judgment of this court in "PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER v. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION" (W.P(C) No. 9445/2009 dated 28.10.2009).

Respondents' / First Respondent and State Information Commission

  • Respondents relied on "UNIVERSITY of CALCUTTA v. PRITAM ROOJ" (AIR 2009 (CAL) 97) and "V.S LEE v. STATE of KERALA" (W.A No. 1990/2007) in support of their contentions.
  • Standing Counsel for the State Information Commission produced a Government of India Office Memorandum dated 14.5.2009, stating Confidential Reports have been replaced by annual appraisal reports, and argued Confidential Reports are no longer personal or private documents.
  • Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent sought the information to investigate grievances concerning propriety and correctness of promotions and other benefits to similar employees.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER v. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION in W.P(C) No. 9445/2009 dated 28.10.2009 Relied upon by the appellant in support of immunity under Section 8(1)(e) and Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act. The Court noted the appellant's reliance on this judgment but did not accept that it established entitlement to immunity in the present facts; the Single Judge's rejection of the Section 8(1)(e) and Section 8(1)(j) claims was upheld.
UNIVERSITY of CALCUTTA v. PRITAM ROOJ (AIR 2009 (CAL) 97) Relied upon by respondents in support of their contentions regarding disclosure under the Right to Information Act. The Court considered this authority as part of respondents' supporting material in upholding disclosure; the judgment did not prevent disclosure in the present case.
V.S LEE v. STATE of KERALA in W.A No. 1990/2007 Relied upon by respondents; referenced in relation to the settled position that provisions of the Right to Information Act should be given a liberal construction. The Court endorsed the position that RTI provisions deserve liberal construction and applied that principle in assessing the exemptions claimed under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j).

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court applied the statutory exemptions in Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act to the facts as follows:

  1. Section 8(1)(e): The court held this provision concerns information held by a person in a fiduciary relationship (examples given: patient-doctor, lawyer-client). The court found no fiduciary relationship arising between an employee seeking information and co-employees about whom information was sought. Therefore Section 8(1)(e) did not apply, and the Single Judge's rejection of this claim was upheld.
  2. Section 8(1)(j): The court acknowledged that personal information exempt under the main clause can be disclosed if the designated authorities are satisfied that larger public interest justifies disclosure. The court analysed the nature of the information sought:
    • Documents produced in a domestic enquiry: Characterised as part of an open trial in disciplinary proceedings, involving production of evidence including public documents; the court found it difficult to treat such documents as personal information whose disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
    • Confidential Reports of co-employees: Described as performance appraisals used for promotions and service benefits. The court noted the Government of India memorandum dated 14.5.2009 replacing Confidential Reports with annual appraisal reports and the Standing Counsel's submission that such reports are no longer private. The first respondent's stated purpose—to verify propriety of promotions and benefits—was identified. On this basis, the court concluded Confidential Reports could not be treated as exempt personal records under Section 8(1)(j).
  3. The court applied the principle of liberal construction of the Right to Information Act (as noted from authority) in resolving the exemptions against the appellant's claims.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED — The Writ Appeals were dismissed, thereby upholding the orders of the State Information Commission and the Single Judge directing disclosure of the documents from the domestic enquiry and the Confidential Reports (annual appraisal reports) of the specified employees.

Implications: The direct effect is that the appellant must disclose the requested information as directed. The court applied existing principles of liberal construction of the Right to Information Act and declined to treat the materials at issue as falling within the exemptions of Sections 8(1)(e) or 8(1)(j). The opinion does not state that it establishes a new precedent beyond these conclusions.

Show full summary ...

    Centre Of Earth Science Studies Petitioner v. Dr. Mrs. Anson Sebastian, Scientist, Ei

    JUDGMENT

    Ramachandran Nair, J.

    The appellant is a State Government agency engaged in studies on earth science. The first respondent, a Scientist working with the appellant applied to the Information Officer of the appellant for getting information pertaining to certain documents relating to domestic enquiry against another employee and also for getting entries in the Confidential Reports of six other employees of the appellant. However, the Information Officer rejected the first respondent's application. Consequent upon which the first respondent filed appeals against the orders of the Information Officer before the State Information Commission, which allowed the appeals directing the appellant to give all the details and copies of documents asked for by the first respondent. The appellant filed various Writ Petitions challenging the orders of the State Information Commission, which were rejected by the learned Single Judge. Even though five Writ Petitions were filed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge, all were dismissed by a common judgment. Though appeals were filed against all the Writ Petitions, two of the Writ Appeals were withdrawn by the appellant. The above are the remaining three cases of which two are against the orders of the learned Single Judge upholding State Information Commission's direction to give copies of Confidential Reports in respect of six Scientists of the appellant and in the third appeal challenge is against direction to give copies of certain documents in domestic enquiry proceedings conducted by the appellant in respect of one of it's employees. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant, Standing Counsel appearing for the State Information Commission and counsel appearing for the first respondent in all the appeals.

    2. While counsel for the appellant has claimed immunity based on Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and relied on judgment of this court in PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER v. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION in W.P(C) No. 9445/2009 dated 28.10.2009, counsel appearing for respondents relied on decision of the Calcutta High Court in UNIVERSITY of CALCUTTA v. PRITAM ROOJ reported in AIR 2009 (CAL) 97 and a Division Bench judgment of this court in V.S LEE v. STATE of KERALA in W.A No. 1990/2007 in support of their contentions. It is a settled position particularly by virtue of the Division Bench judgment of this court that the provisions of the Right to Information Act should be given a liberal construction and, therefore, what is to be considered is whether the immunity or exemption claimed by the appellant under Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the Act is tenable. For easy reference, the said Section is extracted hereunder:

    “S.8(1)(e) - Information available to a person, in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.

    8(1)(j) - Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not 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.”

    3. We are of the view that Section 8(1)(e) has no application because it deals with information available with the person in his fiduciary relationship with another. Information under this head is nothing but information in trust which but for the relationship would not have been conveyed or known to the person concerned. This applies to the relationship that exists between a patient and a Doctor, a lawyer and a client etc. We do not find any application of this provision in relation to the information sought by an employee about other co-employees of the same employer. Therefore, the claim of immunity by the appellant under Section 8(1)(e), in our view, was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge and we, therefore, uphold the finding of the learned Single Judge.

    4. The next question to be considered is whether the information sought by the first respondent relates to personal information of other employees, the disclosure of which is prohibited under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Here again, we notice that under exceptional circumstances even personal information disclosure of which is prohibited under the main clause, can be disclosed if 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 disclosure of such information. What is immune from disclosure as personal information is not one relating to any public activity or interest and what is prohibited is furnishing of information which causes unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. In this case we notice that the information sought by the first respondent pertains to copies of documents furnished in a domestic enquiry against one of the employees of the appellant-organisation. Domestic enquiry is an open trial which is essentially initiated as part of disciplinary proceedings against the employee. Domestic enquiry involves production of evidence including documents, some of which are even public documents. We do not know how documents produced in a domestic enquiry can be treated as documents relating to personal information of a person, the disclosure of which will cause unwarranted invasion of his privacy. Similar is the position with regard to the particulars of Confidential Reports maintained in respect of co-employees of the first respondent all of whom are Scientists. Confidential Reports are essentially performance appraisal by higher officials which along with other things constitute the basis for promotions and other service benefits. Counsel for the State Information Commission has produced a Government of India Office Memorandum dated 14.5.2009 by which the Confidential Reports have been taken away and in their place what is authorised to be maintained is annual appraisal reports. According to Standing Counsel for the Information Commission, the Confidential Reports are no longer personal documents or private documents and all the employees are entitled to know the details of the same. Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that first respondent has grievance in her service and in order to satisfy herself about the propriety and correctness of promotions and other benefits given to similar employees, she wants details of the same. We do not think the Confidential Reports of the employees maintained by the appellant can be treated as records pertaining to personal information of an employee, the publication of which is prohibited under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. We, therefore, concur with the findings of the learned Single Judge on this issue as well. Consequently Writ Appeals are dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Centre Of Earth Science Studies Petitioner v. Dr. Mrs. Anson Sebastian, Scientist, Ei
    (Feb 17, 2010)