LexGIRISH RAMCHANDRA DESHPANDE versus CEN. INFORMATION COMMR. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 8 S.C.R. 1097 GIRISH RAMCHANDRA DESHPANDE v. CEN. INFORMATION COMMR. & ORS. (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 27734 of 2012) OCTOBER 3, 2012 [K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] A B Right to Information Act, 2005 - s. 8(1) - 'Personal information" as defined in clause OJ of s.8(1) - Scope and interpretation - Petitioner submitted application before the C Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour, Government of India) calling for various details relating to third respondent, who was employed as Enforcement' Officer in a Sub-Regional Office - The petitioner sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment D awarded to the third respondent from his employer; details of his movable and immovable properties, investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions and also details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at E the marriage of his son - Most details sought by the petitioner were contained in the income tax returns of third respondent - Whether the information sought for by the petitioner qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of s. 8(1) and were thus exempted from disclosure - Held: The F 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 G or public interest - On the other hand, such disclosure 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 1097 H 1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 8 S.C.R. A 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 - The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand B exempted from disclosure under clause (}) of s.8(1), 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 the c instant case, the petitioner did not make a bona fide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual u/s. 8(1 )(}) - Details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show 0 cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (}) of s.8(1) - Petifion accordingly dismissed. Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. AdityaBandopadhyay and others (2011) 8 SCC 497: 2011 E (11) SCR 1028 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 2011 (11) SCR 1028 referred to Para 10 F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012. From the Judgment & Order dated 21.12.2011 of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Nagpur in Letters G Patent Appeal No. 358 of 2011. H AP. Wachasunder, Jatin Zaveri, Neel Kamal Mishra for the Petitioner. The following Order of the Court was delivered GIRISH RAMCHANDRA DESHPANDE v. CEN. 1099 INFORMATION COMMR. ORDER A 1. Delay condoned. 2. We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether the Central Information Commissioner (for short 'the CIC') acting under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short B 'the RTI Act') was right in denying information regarding the third respondent's personal matters pertaining to his service career and also denying the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties on the ground that the information sought for was qualified to be personal information C as defined in clause G) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. 3. The petitioner herein had submitted an application on 27.8.2008 before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour, Government of India) calling for various D details relating to third respondent, who was employed as an Enforcement Officer in Sub-Reg
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.