ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Fri, Dec 13, 2019
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Exemption >> Personal Information
Supreme Court(Personal Information)/ High Courts(Personal Information)
166 CIC/SG/C/2010/001567+000047/12193Adjunct
(66.63 KB) pdf icon
01 Jun, 2011 Mr. Dharam Pal Singh, Ghaziabad,U.P. Vs. PIO & Assistant Commissioner (HQ), Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Dept., GNCTD, Delhi.

RTI is about pension that is illegally received by Smt. Anaro, New Delhi. CPIO intimated that Mrs. Anaro Devi is only getting Old age pension and not widow pension. Mrs. Anaro Devi had objected in releasing her information hence attested photocopies of documents cannot be supplied.
CIC held that, a mere refusal by the third party cannot constitute a reasons for denial of information unless the information is exempt under Section- 8(1) of the RTI Act. Details of beneficiaries of various schemes cannot be considered as exempt under Section-8(1) of the RTI Act.
167 CIC/SG/A/2011/000149/12046
(51.58 KB) pdf icon
19 Apr, 2011 Mr. Raghu S Bangalore Vs. Mr. P. V. Verma Public Information Officer & RPFC-II Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Nagpur.

The Appellant has sought information about the individual contributions made by employees in their PF accounts. The PIO has claimed exemption under Section-8(1)(j) & (e) of the RTI Act. The Commission earlier has also ruled that the employees PF contribution is clearly held under the Fiduciary Relationship by the PF Authorities and hence cannot be revealed.
168 CIC/LS/A/2010/001312
(27.53 KB) pdf icon
31 Mar, 2011 Shri Jayant Kumar Das Vs. Department of Posts, Bhubneshwar

Vide RTI application dated 6.3.2010, the appellant had requested for information about the movable and immovable properties of Shri Pradeep Kumar Nayak and the members of his family etc. The CPIO had refused to disclose this information vide letter dated 5.4.2010 u/s 8 (1) of the RTI Act.
CIC observed that, appellant is requesting for ‘personal’ information. This information is barred from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (j). This information can be disclosed only in the larger public interest. The appellant has not made out a case that disclosure of this information would be in the larger public interest. Hence, the appeal dismissed.
169 CIC/DS/A/2010/001659
(86.28 KB) pdf icon
30 Mar, 2011 Sh. Raj Kumar Singh, New Delhi Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., N.Delhi.

Shri Raj Kumar Singh preferred RTI application dated 11 December 2009 before the CPIO, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, New Delhi seeking information pertaining to official trips made by Ms Nita Sharma and leave of absence availed by her in March 2005. The CPIO denied disclosure of information citing the provisions of section 8 (1) (j) of the Act.
After hearing both parties the Commission directs respondent to provide information sought by the appellant since this pertained to the official records held by the appellant and the expenditure for the official trips was incurred by the public authority from public monies.
170 CIC/WB/A/2010/000033, 37 & 300-SM
(210.64 KB) pdf icon
29 Mar, 2011 Shri Ashok Golas, New Delhi Vs. CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat

the Appellant had sought a number of information regarding the selection and appointment of the Member (Services) and Member (Technology) of the Telecom Commission and Chairman,TRAI. By and large, the CPIO had declined the information by claiming exemption under Section 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
CIC held that, Selection and appointment to certain posts in the government are part of the administrative decision¬making process and must be placed in the public domain as soon as possible in order to ensure transparency. It is for this reason that even Section 8(1) (i) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act which ordinarily exempts Cabinet papers from disclosure provides that a number of information about the decision-making by the Council of Ministers would have to be disclosed after the decision is taken and the matter is complete and over. If the CIC/WB/A/2010/000033, 37 & 300¬SM information regarding selection and appointment to any public office is not disclosed by claiming it to be personal information, it would be nothing but a travesty of the exemption provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. CIC directed the CPIO to invite the Appellant on any mutually convenient date within 20 working days from the receipt of this order and to show him the entire file, as available with the Cabinet Secretariat, regarding the selection to the post of the Chairman, TRAI in response to the advertisement dated 5 February 2009 but excluding all information in respect of the ACRs of all candidates other than the Appellant himself. If after inspecting the file, the Appellant would choose to get the photocopies of some of the records and documents, the CPIO shall provide the same to him free of charge.
171 CIC/SM/A/2010/000967
(204.91 KB) pdf icon
16 Mar, 2011 Shri N Nagesh Vs. CPIO, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.

The appellant had sought some information relating to the Hindi officers employed by the public authority and their education qualification which was denied by the CPIO being personal information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission held that details about the educational qualifications of the employees cannot be classified as personal information since it is based on these qualifications that people are appointed in the first place. Section 8(1)(j)
172 CIC/SG/A/2011/000029/11500
(52.90 KB) pdf icon
16 Mar, 2011 Mr. T. P. Singh vs Public Information Officer & Join Registrar (Plg. & Policy) Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University Kashmere Gate, Delhi

Whether institutions, organisations or a corporate can claim exemption under section 8(I)(j) of the RTI Act being personal information. The Commission held that in common language, the adjective 'personal' applies to an individual and not to an Institution or a Corporate. Therefore, 'personal' cannot be related to Institutions, organisationor corporates. Hence, Section 8(1)(j) cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organisations or corporates. Also educational institutions cannot claim exemption under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act which relates to commercial confidence.
173 CIC/AD/A/2011/000309
(312.00 KB) pdf icon
09 Mar, 2011 Shri T.M.Chacko S/o Late Markose Vs. Regional Passport Office Hudco

The Appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO, RPO, Delhi seeking certain information relating to Passport details of a third party. The Commission held that in the facts and circumstances of the case larger public interest certainly outweighs any harm to protected interests of the third party in this case and accordingly directed the PIO to provide the information as sought by the appellant. Section 8(1)(j)
174 CIC/DS/A/2010/001576
(79.40 KB) pdf icon
03 Mar, 2011 Shri S.K.Gupta, Chandigarh vs The New India Assurance Co.Ltd, Mumbai

The applicant preferred RTI application before the CPIO, The New India Assurance Company Limited, seeking to have copies of his ACRs for the period 2000-01 to 2009-10. The CIC held that in the spirit of promoting transparency in the evaluation of employees which is intended to help them to reassess their own performances and bridge their own deficiencies the respondents are directed to provide overall marks awarded to the appellant.
175 CIC/LS/A/2010/001140DS
(86.57 KB) pdf icon
29 Dec, 2010 Sh.Anil Manwani, Mumbai Vs. Income Tax Officer

The applicant sought information pertaining to income tax assessments completed by Income Tax Officer for the period from 1st December 2009 to 31st December 2009. The Commission upholds the order of the CPIO and the first appellate authority in denying disclosure of the third party information which has no relationship with any public activity or interest. Section 8(1)(j)
176 CIC/SM/A/2010/000805 & 809
(206.90 KB) pdf icon
21 Dec, 2010 Shri R K Jain Vs. CPIO, Punjab National Bank

The Appellant had sought a number of information (a) regarding the income tax and property returns filed by Sh. RS Siddu and (b) the legal expenses incurred by the Bank in a series of cases it contested against the Appellant himself. The Commission held that while the property returns filed by Sh. Siddu cannot be disclosed being in the nature of personal information, as it can cause unwarranted invasion of his privacy, other details such as whether he had ever been charge sheeted and about his postings and promotions during the preceding 10 years can be disclosed. Similarly, the payments made to the lawyers and the other expenses incurred in connection with the cases can also be disclosed as there is nothing confidential or personal about it. Section8(1)(j)
177 CIC/SG/A/2010/002806/10448
(45.96 KB) pdf icon
15 Dec, 2010 Mrs. Rekha Sharma vs Mr. J. B. Singh Public Information Officer & Dy. Director of Education Directorate of Education (GNCTD)

The Commission held that the information on all the queries except one, cannot be considered exempt under section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The third party had objected to releasing the information but most of the information actually be in public domain. Hence, the information must be provided. Section 8(1) (j)
178 CIC/SM/A/2010/000758
(205.69 KB) pdf icon
09 Dec, 2010 Shri Pankaj Kumar Jha Vs. CPIO, Indian Overseas Bank

The appellant had wanted the details of the employees of the erstwhile Bharat Overseas Bank which had merged in the Indian Overseas Bank. The Commission held that the information should be provided to the applicant. Section 7(9) Section 8(1)(j)
179 CIC/SM/A/2010/000709
(205.94 KB) pdf icon
08 Dec, 2010 Shri T V Padmanabha Vs. CPIO, Punjab National Bank

The appellant filed RTI application and wanted to have a list of all the employees of the Bank from all over India who had unauthorized abstained from work for more than 90 days but were still in the payroll of the Bank along with the action taken in each case. The Commission held that the CPIO cannot be expected to generate information which does not exist. Appeal disallowed. Section 6(1), 7(9) and 8(1)(j)
180 CIC/SM/A/2010/000730 & 765
(206.17 KB) pdf icon
07 Dec, 2010 Shri Anurag Mohan Rathore S/o. Sri Gauri Shanker Vs. CPIO, Shreyas Gramin Bank

Information about the amount of compensation paid to the employee of any public authority must be available in the public domain. The Appellant is entitled to know the maintenance allowance being paid to this particular employee irrespective of whether he is his father or anyone else. CPIO is directed to provide the information. Section 8(1)(j)
Total Case uploaded: 184