- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
B.N. Singh v. Central Public Infor...
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2020 requesting the list of elected circle office bearers of SC/ST associations for Postal and RMS in Telangana Postal Circle. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) responded on 05.11.2020 stating that the requested information was not available. Dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 12.11.2020, which was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 26.11.2020, upholding the CPIO's reply. The Appellant then filed a Second Appeal before the Commission, alleging suppression of information by enclosing a letter dated 04.12.2020, which indicated that such a list existed and was held by the CPIO. During the hearing, both parties appeared via audio conference. The CPIO submitted that the association in question was unrecognized and unregistered, justifying the nonavailability of the information.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the list of elected circle office bearers of SC/ST associations for Postal and RMS in Telangana Postal Circle is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as “personal information”.
- Whether the factual assertion by the CPIO regarding nonavailability of information can be challenged under the RTI Act.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Appellant contended that the list of office bearers of the SC/ST Welfare Association for Telangana Postal Circle existed and was available with the CPIO.
- The Appellant alleged that the CPIO was suppressing the requested information, supporting this claim by submitting a letter dated 04.12.2020 addressed to a Circle Secretary of the SC/ST employees welfare association.
Respondent's Arguments
- The CPIO submitted that the association was unrecognized and unregistered, and therefore the requested information was not available.
- The CPIO maintained that the nonavailability of information was duly communicated to the Appellant in accordance with the RTI Act.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, Civil Appeal Nos. 10044, 10045 & 2683 of 2010 | Interpretation of “personal information” under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act | The Court relied on this judgment to affirm that the requested list falls within the scope of personal information exempted from disclosure. |
| Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 | Definition and scope of personal information under RTI Act | Used as precedent to illustrate the nature of personal records protected from disclosure. |
| Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, (2013) 1 SCC 212 | Clarification of personal information and privacy under RTI | Supported the interpretation that professional and personal records are protected unless larger public interest is established. |
| R.K. Jain v. Union of India, (2013) 14 SCC 794 | Scope of protection of personal information under RTI Act | Referenced to reinforce the conditional access to personal information when public interest is satisfied. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Commission examined the facts and the legal provisions applicable to the case. It observed that the list of office bearers requested by the Appellant falls within the ambit of “personal information” as defined under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This exemption is supported by the Supreme Court’s precedents cited, which clarify that personal records such as names and related professional details are protected from disclosure unless a larger public interest is demonstrated. The Commission found that the CPIO’s assertion of nonavailability of the information was made in good faith and consistent with the RTI Act’s spirit. Moreover, the challenge by the Appellant to the factual correctness of the CPIO’s reply does not fall within the scope of the RTI Act’s adjudicatory framework. Consequently, the Commission concluded that no further intervention was necessary.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is disposed of.
The Commission’s decision affirms that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as personal information. The direct effect is that the CPIO’s refusal to provide the list is upheld, and no further action is warranted. The opinion does not establish any new precedent beyond applying existing Supreme Court rulings on personal information exemptions under the RTI Act.
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2020 seeking the following information;
“Request for supply of list of elected circle office bearers of SC/ST associations for Postal and RMS in Telangana Postal Circle.”
2. The CPIO replied to the appellant on 05.11.2020 mentioning that the requisite information is not available.
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.11.2020. FAA's order dated 26.11.2020, uphold the reply of CPIO.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds -
“I am herewith enclosing a copy of Lr No U/SC-ST/Association/Dlgs/2020 dated 04.12.2020 addressed to Sri A Rajkumar Circle Secretary All India SC/ST employees welfare Association E7 Type II P& T Quarters Chikkadapally Hyderabad 20 issued by Assistant Director (Sports & Union) o/o CPMG Telangana Circle reveals that the list office bearers of Circle Welfare Association is for SC/ST employees Telangana Circle was in existence and the list is available with the CPIO and they are inclined to suppress the information requested by me.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
5. The following were present:—
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: G Hymavathi, APMG & Rep. of CPIO present through audio-conference.
6. The Appellant reiterated the contents of his instant Appeal as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.
7. The CPIO submitted that the list of office bearers of averred Association for Postal Circle of Telangana as sought by the Appellant was an unrecognized/unregistered trade Association, therefore the factum of nonavailability of information has been duly intimated to the Appellant.
DECISION
8. The Commission upon a perusal of facts on records observes that the list of office bearers of SC/ST Associations for Postal and RMS in Telangana Postal Circle as sought by the Appellant through the instant RTI Application is squarely hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The said observation is in lines with a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of “personal information” envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain v. Union of India, (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
“59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive…”
9. Nonetheless, the factual reply provided by the CPIO intimating the nonavailability of information is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
10. Further, the issue raised by the Appellant challenging the veracity of factual information provided by the CPIO is not amenable under the RTI Act.
11. In view of the foregoing observations, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
12. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Alert