ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Thu, Aug 22, 2019
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Exemption >> Personal Information
Supreme Court(Personal Information)/ High Courts(Personal Information)
S.No. CIC CASE DATE OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT
31 CIC/SD/A/2016/000149/SD
(90.79 kB) pdf icon
24 Jan, 2017 Soma Ray vs School of Foreign languages, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(g) Information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person. Section 80) (j). Personal Information. The Commission held that the CPIO has denied the information based on the said exemptions as a blanket provision. The CPIO has failed to specify which particular exemption applies to which query as he has to provide a premise for denying information under the various provisions of sections 8 and/or 9 of the RTI Act. The reliance of the CPIO on sections 8(1)(e) & (h) of the RTI Act is rather misplaced and irrelevant. However, sections 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(g) has been adequately invoked. The same will be covered by the exemption of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as it concerns personal information of third parties, disclosure of which has no apparent larger public interest. The details of question paper setters, evaluators and board of examiners are exempted under section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
32 CIC/VS/A/2014/003178-BJ
(100.43 kB) pdf icon
18 Jan, 2017 Rajesh Kumar Yadav vs North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur

Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information. The Commission relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v Central Information Commission & Ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012, wherein, it was held that 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.
33 CIC/VS/A/2014/003313-BJ
(107.03 kB) pdf icon
18 Jan, 2017 Chandrakanth N. Naik vs CPIO, Konkan Railways Corporations Limited

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that all the information regarding government contracts with the individuals must be made public. However, the personal information of the third party can be exempted from disclosure and severed from the information sought under the provision of section 8(1)(j) read with section 10 of the RTI Act. The respondent is directed to provide a copy of the contract entered by the respondent with S.G Bhat, Proprietor, Hovyak Associates, to the appellant, severing personal details of the third party as per section 10 of the RTI Act.
34 CIC/RM/A/2014/001130
(47.94 kB) pdf icon
17 Jan, 2017 Vijay Prakash Gupta vs CBSE

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The appellant filed RTI application seeking information relating to admission of his son in Ryan International School, Ghaziabad, including certified copies of all mandatory documents submitted, additional documents submitted, additional fees and charges paid by his wife along with other related. The appellant's wife refused to grant permission on ground of third party information. The CPIO denied the information under section 80) (j) of the RTI Act. The Commission upheld the decision of the respondent.
35 CIC/SA/A/2016/000591
(100.29 kB) pdf icon
17 Jan, 2017 Mohd Naushaduddin vs CBSE, Ajmer

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that the RTI Act does not allow the CPIO to take shelter under practical difficulties to deny this legal right. Once the information is held by the public authority it cannot be denied except under sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. It is duty of every public officer to provide information held by it if not hit by any exception under RTI Act.

The Commission directed the office of Minister for Textiles (Ms. Smriti Zubin Irani) and the Holy Child Auxilium School, Delhi to provide the roll number or reference number of Ms. Smriti Zubin Irani to CBSE, Ajmer, which possess the records for the years 1991 and 1993 to facilitate search from huge records which is yet to be digitized. However, the defence under section 8(1)(j) could be available to deny copies of 'admit card' and 'marks sheet', if they contain certain personal details of the student unrelated to public activity of education, disclosure of which might cause unwarranted invasion of privacy.
36 CIC/SA/A/2016/001452
(63.87 kB) pdf icon
04 Jan, 2017 Meenakshi vs DDE (Central)

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The appellant filed criminal case under section 498A IPC against her husband, who happened to be PIO in this case. The Commission held that if the marriage is not annulled as prayed by husband, the appellant would be entitled to family pension or pension in her capacity as heir. If the marriage is annulled, the nomination information does not matter for either of the parties. As long as she continues to be his wife, she has a rightful interest in knowing the nomination; that public interest is larger than the interest of the employee who is objecting disclosure. In this case, marriage of appellant-wife is still subsisting as on the date of hearing, hence there existed public interest and thus she has a right to know about the nominee. The moment marriage is annulled the appellant will not be entitled to know the same because such public interest gets exhausted. As a wife, appellant has a rightful interest to protect for which she is entitled to know the name of the nominee, disclosure of which will not cause any unwarranted invasion of privacy, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the Commission directed the public authority to furnish the name of the nominee by the third party, i.e., the husband of appellant.
37 CIC/SB/A/2015/000516
(57.99 kB) pdf icon
20 Dec, 2016 Amit Mahalwal vs Delhi Police, Delhi & Ann

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that the denial of information regarding duty roster and details about the leave of public servant, except the reasons for leave, is not a personal information and further the same relates to public activity/interest. Hence, the information sought on point nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI application is not exempted under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
38 CIC/MP/A/2016/001458
(40.31 kB) pdf icon
14 Dec, 2016 Nitin Dange vs Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The CPIO denied the information under the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act being personal information of third party, however, provided the date of retirement and name of PIO and his designation and the PIO's employee ID was denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

The Commission held that information permissible under the RTI Act had been provided by the CPIO and personal information related to third party cannot be provided under the provisions of sections 8(I)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, the disclosure of which had no relationship to any public interest or activity. The Commission upheld the decision of the FAA.
39 CIC/CC/A/2014/000666
(124.36 kB) pdf icon
14 Dec, 2016 Rajesh Madhukant vs Hemwati Nandan Bhanguna Garhwal University

Section 8(1) (j) Personal Information. Whether degree related information of a particular student is his or her personal information or third party information, and whether such information was given to University in fiduciary capacity, as contented by public authority?

The Commission held that once a student passes an examination and qualifies to secure a degree, the degree and passing details cannot be treated as private or third party information. Passing an examination is a qualification and awarding the degree such as 10th Class, 12th Class or Intermediate, graduation or post graduation, is a public activity and that certificate is a public document generated by a public institution. The academic institutions awarding such degrees under a statutory authority are discharging their statutory duties such as registering the qualification details and degree related information. Hence, the degree or academic qualification related information need to be accessible to the citizen.
40 CIC/SB/A/2015/000433
(57.73 kB) pdf icon
02 Dec, 2016 Syed Sajad Ali vs Delhi Police, Delhi

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that the information is sought about the presence of a public servant on certain dates and timing of duty.

The Commission observed that every public servant while on duty is involved in a public activity, hence, any information pertaining to the presence or absence of a public servant from duty is related to public interest. Information pertaining to the attendance of a public servant cannot be withheld. The Commission, therefore, directed the respondent to provide the information sought by the appellant.
41 CIC/CC/A/2014/000643-SA
(76.52 kB) pdf icon
23 Nov, 2016 Mamta Srivastapa vs Information and Library Network Centre

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information

Publication of the thesis. The Commission held that 'The Shodhganga INFLIBNET' is not private body, but a public authority working with the object of spreading the knowledge through keeping research results and thesis approved as the official website to facilitate access for all, which will enhance further research. The Ph.D. reports are results of joint efforts of research scholar and university, and respondent authority being public authority has every authority to publish the thesis, to advance access to knowledge and further research.
42 CIC/VS/A/2015/000501
(80.41 kB) pdf icon
11 Nov, 2016 Mr. Bhushan Sharma Vs CPIO, South Central Railway

The appellant filed RTI application seeking photo copy of his answer booklet, photo copy of the question booklet of the candidate who has secured 33.35% marks, copy of final merit list. The respondent is directed to provide the complete merit list along with marks of all candidates. The respondent should also provide to the appellant his question booklet in Hindi, along with copy of key answer sheet.
43 CIC/VS/A/2015/003344/SD
(69.12 kB) pdf icon
31 Oct, 2016 Amar Kumar Jha vs CPIO, Station Headquarter, Agartala

Section 8(1) (j) Personal Information.

The Commission held that it is fully aware that an applicant does not require to give any citizenship proof for seeking information under RTI Act but the facts of the present matter compel the Commission to ascertain the identity of the Appellant since he is asking for information of such nature which if proven otherwise will pertain to a third party. The Commission also makes a serious note of the fact that the Appellant failed to show any kind of identity proof when asked for aiding his case during the hearing.

The Commission directed the CPIO to provide inspection of relevant and available records of the information sought in the RTI Application to the Appellant, however, the CPIO is not obliged to provide the said inspection if the Appellant while appearing for this purpose at the Station Headquarter, Agartala fails to show his identity proof to fully establish that he is the same as the person with respect to whom the information is being sought.
44 CIC/MP/C/2016/000106
(37.90 kB) pdf icon
28 Oct, 2016 Hemant Singhal vs India Security Press, Nashik Road

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information.
The Commission cautions the CPIO for providing a cryptic response to the complainant without giving justification on the exemptions claimed under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.

The Commission observes that the information as sought by the complainant pertained to third parties and cannot be provided under the provisions of Sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.
45 CIC/MP/A/2016/000850
(32.86 kB) pdf icon
27 Oct, 2016 J. Aggarwal vs Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh

The Commission held that the information sought relates to pensioners and is third party information held by the bank in its fiduciary capacity, therefore, is not disclosable u/s 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The public authority is also not obligated to collect or collate non-available information for the appellant's perusal. The Commission upheld the decision of the respondents.
Total Case uploaded: 181