R.K. JAIN versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: [2013] 5 S.C.R. 411 · Decided: 16-04-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 5 S.C.R, 411 
R.K. JAIN 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR: 
(Civil Appeal No. 3878 of 2013) 
APRIL 16, 2013 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI 
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.) 
A 
B 
Right to Information Act, 2005 - ss.8(1)(j) and 11 -
Information regarding ACR of public servant - Whether can 
C 
be disclosed to third person - ACR record of an officer cannot 
be disclosed to third person, except in cases involving 
overriding public interest - However, such disclosure of 
information would be after following the procedure under 
s.11(1). 
D 
The appellant filed application u/s. 6 of Right to 
Information Act, 2005, seeking information regarding 
ACR of the Member, CESTAT, relating to adverse entries 
in the ACR and 'the follow-up action' taken therein on the 
E 
question of her integrity. The statutory authorities denied 
the same, on the ground that the information sought, 
attracted Clause (j) of s.8(1) of the Act. 
In the Writ Petition against the order, Single Judge 
of High Court held that ACR record cannot be disclosed, 
F 
except in cases involving overriding public interest and 
remanded the matter to Central Information Commission 
(CIC) for considering the issue whether in larger public 
interest, the information sought could be disclosed and 
if conclusion was in the affirmative, CIC to folfow G 
procedure u/s.11 (1 ). Writ appeal against the order of the 
Single Judge was dismissed by Division Bench of High 
Court. Hence the present appeal. 
4t1 
H 
412 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 8 of Right to Information Act, 2005 
deals with exemption from disclosure of information. 
Under clause (j) of Section 8(1 ), there shall be no 
8 obligation to give any citizen, information which relates 
to personal information the disclosure of which has no 
relationship to any public activity or interest, or which 
would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the 
individual, unless the Central Public Information Officer 
or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate 
C authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies 
the disclosure of such information. [Para 12) [420-C-D] 
2. Section 11 of the Act deals with third party 
information and the circumstances when such 
D information can be disclosed and the manner in which it 
is to be disclosed, if so decided by the Competent 
Authority. Under Section 11(1), if the information relates 
to or has been supplied by a third party and has been 
treated as confidential by the third party, and if the Central 
E Public Information Officer or a State Public Information 
Officer intends to disclose any such information or record 
on a request made under the Act, in such case after 
written notice to the third party of the request, the Officer 
may disclose the information, if the third party agrees to 
F such request or if the public interest in disclosure, 
outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to 
the interests of such third party. [Para 13) [421-A-C) 
3. The judgment of High Court on the question of 
appellant's seeking inspection of documents relating to 
G the ACR of the Member, CESTAT, inter alia, relating to 
adverse entries in the ACR and the 'follow up action' 
taken therein on the question of ii:itegrity, does not call 
for any interference. [Para 17) [427-F-G] 
H 
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information 
R.K. JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA 
413 
Commissioner and Ors. (2013) 1 SCC 212: 2012 (8) SCR 
A 
1097 - relied on. 
Arvind Kejriwal vs. Central Public Information Officer AIR 
2010 Delhi 216; Centre for Earth Sciences Studies vs. Anson 
Sebastian 2010 (2) KLT 233 - referred to. 
B 
State of U.P. vs. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 865: 1975 (3) 
SCR 333 - cited. 
Case Law Reference: 
1975 (3) SCR 333 
2010 (2) KLT 233 
AIR 2010 Delhi 216 
2012 (8) SCR 1097 
cited 
referred to 
referred to 
relied on 
Para 8 
Para 14 
Para 15 
Para 16 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
3878 of 2013. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.04.2012 of the 
D 
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 22 of 2012. 
E 
Prashant Bhushan for the Appellant. 
AS. Chandiok, ASG, Rajiv Nanda, Anirudh Sharma, B. 
Krishna Prasad for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. Leave 
granted. 
F 
2. In this appeal, the appellant challenges the final judgment 
G 
and order dated 20th April, 2012 passed by the Delhi High 
Court in LP.A. No. 22/201

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.