O R D E R
Information Sought:
The appellant filed an RTI application on 06.08.2018, seeking information as follows:-
"Kindly provide the details of Medical Claim, Traveling allowance bill, Transfer allowance bill submitted by the staffs of Postal Department during the year 2010 to 2018 in their different capacity. The information should be contain Place of visit, nature of official tour, the period, name of the hospital, Name of the place posted and transferred, total cost paid in the each bill undertaken."
The CPIO, vide letter dated 06.09.2018, denied information under section 8(1)(d) and (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Being dissatisfied, appellant filed first appeal dated 14.09.2018. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The appellant filed second appeal u/s 19 of the RTI Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that due information has not been provided to him till date. He further alleged that owing to the corruption prevailing in the Postal department, the appellant had sought information regarding the medical claims, travelling allowances etc. submitted by Postal Department staff for a particular period. However, the respondent wrongly invoked Section 8 of the RTI Act with the malafide intent of withholding the information.
Page 2 of 11
The respondent submitted that the information sought for in the RTI application in question is held by the Postal Department in fiduciary capacity. Further, such information is of commercial confidence for the Department of Post, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the third party concerned. Moreover, it also relates to the personal information of the 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 and hence, the disclosure of the information sought is exempted under Section 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. Thus, an appropriate reply, as per the provisions of the RTI Act was furnished to the appellant vide letter dated 06.09.2018 and further, vide FAA's order dated 23.10.2018. The respondent furthermore submitted that the appellant is seeking Medical Claim, Traveling allowance bill, Transfer allowance bill submitted by the staffs of the entire Postal Department of the country which is beyond the scope of RTI Act. The appellant, however, clarified that the information has been sought with respect staff of Postal Department of Port Blair only.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India & Ors. vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry & Ors., (2016) 3 SCC 525 wherein while dealing with the defence of RBI that it was in the fiduciary relationship with the Bank, the Hon'ble Apex Court noted as follows:-
"55. The Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition, 2005, defines fiduciary relationship as "a relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on the matters within the scope of the fiduciary relationship. Fiduciary relationship usually arise in one of the four situations (1) when one person places trust in the faithful integrity of
Page 3 of 11
another, who as a result gains superiority or influence over the first, (2) when one person assumes control and responsibility over another, (3) when one person has a duty to act or give advice to another on matters falling within the scope of the relationship, or (4) when there is specific relationship that has traditionally be recognized as involving fiduciary duties, as with a lawyer and a client, or a stockbroker and a customer. xxx
57. The term fiduciary relationship has been well discussed by this Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. (supra). In the said decision, their Lordships referred various authorities to ascertain the meaning of the term fiduciary relationship and observed thus: 20.1) Black's Law Dictionary (7th Edition, Page 640) defines 'fiduciary relationship' thus: A relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on matters within the scope of the relationship. Fiduciary relationships-such as trustee beneficiary, guardian-ward, agent-principal, and attorney client-require the highest duty of care. Fiduciary relationships usually arise in one of four situations: (1) when one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who as a result gains superiority or influence over the first, (2) when one person assumes control and responsibility over another, (3) when one person has a duty to act for or give advice to another on matters falling within the scope of the relationship, or (4) when there is a specific relationship that has traditionally been recognized as involving fiduciary duties, as with a lawyer and a client or a stockbroker and a customer." Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in Central Board of Secondary Education and another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others, (2011) 8 SCC497 held that:-
Page 4 of 11
"22. ………….the words `information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship' are used in section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act in its normal and well recognized sense, that is to refer to persons who act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to a specific beneficiary or beneficiaries who are to be expected to be protected or benefited by the actions of the fiduciary - a trustee with reference to the beneficiary of the trust, a guardian with reference to a minor/physically/infirm/mentally challenged, a parent with reference to a child, a lawyer or a chartered accountant with reference to a client, a doctor or nurse with reference to a patient, an agent with reference to a principal, a partner with reference to another partner, a director of a company with reference to a share-holder, an executor with reference to a legatee, a receiver with reference to the parties to a lis, an employer with reference to the confidential information relating to the employee, and an employee with reference to business dealings/transaction of the employer." Furthermore, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 29.01.2018 [Satpal vs. Central Information Commission & ors.- WP(C) No. 5057/2015] has held as under:
"6. It is apparent from the above that personal information or details submitted by an employee to an employer for the purposes of his employment are expected to be kept confidential. Plainly, the same cannot be available to all and sundry. However, if the competent authority is satisfied that a larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information, the same can be disclosed, notwithstanding, that the same was available with the person in a fiduciary capacity."
Page 5 of 11
With regards to the exemption of information from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act,2005, a reference can be drawn from the decision of the High Court of Delhi in WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.8396/2009, 16907/2006, 4788/2008, 9914/2009, 6085/2008, 7304/2007, 7930/2009 AND 3607 OF 2007, decided on 30th November , 2009 wherein it was held as under:.
15. "The object behind Section 8(1) (e) is to protect the information because it is furnished in confidence and trust reposed. It serves public purpose and ensures that the confidence, trust and the confidentiality attached is not betrayed. Confidences are respected. This is the public interest which the exemption under Section 8(1)(e) is designed to protect. It should not be expanded beyond what is desired to be protected. Keeping in view the object and purpose behind Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, where it is possible to protect the identity and confidentiality of the fiduciary, information can be furnished to the information seeker. This has to be examined in case to case basis, individually.
16. Thus, where information can be furnished without compromising or affecting the confidentiality and identity of the fiduciary, information should be supplied and the bar under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act cannot be invoked. In some cases principle of severability can be applied and thereafter information can be furnished. A purposive interpretation to effectuate the intention of the legislation has to be applied while applying Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act and the prohibition should not be extended beyond what is required to be protected.
17. Even when Section 8(1)(e) applies, the competent authority where larger public interest requires, can pass an order directing disclosure of information."
Page 6 of 11
The Commission further finds it pivotal to cite observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases, wherein the aspect of "personal information" had been explained in a highly structured manner. In this regard, ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Canara Bank Vs. C S Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009 may be noted, wherein the scope of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act with respect to service matters of government employees has been further exemplified. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
"5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc
11) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of the Act.
12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794, 5 it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the
Page 7 of 11
information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature; secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1."
Further, Commission also relies upon the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13.11.2019 in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
"…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 confidential
Page 8 of 11
access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive…"
The Commission also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
"13......The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right."
14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are
"personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause
(j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
In light of the facts of the case and above cited decisions, the Commission observes that the information sought by the appellant pertains to the Medical Claim, Traveling allowance bill, Transfer allowance bill submitted by the staffs of Postal
Page 9 of 11
Department during the year 2010 to 2018. Such information relates to personal information of third parties, which is of commercial confidence to the respondent public authority and is held by them in a fiduciary capacity. Further, a mere unsubstantiated allegation of corruption by the appellant cannot become the ground of larger public interest. Thus, the disclosure of such information has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third parties and hence, is exempted under Section 8(1) (d), (e) and
(j) of the RTI Act. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The appeal, hereby, stands disposed of. Amita Pandove ( अिमता पांंडंं व) Information Commissioner (सूूचूू ना आयुुुु )
दनांक / Date: 14.07.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana ( बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027
Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA), Department of Posts,
Postmaster General,
Port Blair A&N Islands -744101
Page 10 of 11
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Posts,
Postmaster General,
Port Blair, Andaman &
Nicobar Islands-744101
3. Shri D Shekhar,
Page 11 of 11