Please refer the recent IC Shailesh Gahdhis order and High court calcuttas order it will be of help to u. IC Shailesh Gandhi has already given order in simmilar case in this regard. Bhaskar
On 4/3/09, Gopala krishnan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear All at rti_india, > > I am a fellow member. I am dealing with a situation where the Applicant is > a student who had taken part in a CBSE conducted entrance examination. The > Applicant was declared failed by CBSE. However, as the Applicant felt that > he had done well at the examination and could not have failed, he approached > the PIO of CBSE under RTI and requested for his mark sheets. > > The PIO and thereafter, the Appellate Authority rejected the request oft he > Applicant on the grounds that CBSE has a fiduciary relationship with the > examiners and is bound to keep the identity of the examiners a secret; the > request is opposed to larger public interest; lastly, CIC has held in some > of its rulings that CBSE is created under a statute as such RTI cannot be > invoked in respect of CBSE. > > The Applicant has since filed a 2nd Appeal in the CIC and the same is > likely to come up for hearing very soon. > > Firstly, it has come to my notice that the issue regarding CBSE and RTI is > pending before a full bench of CIC. I do not have the details of this case. > Secondly, I am not sure if the CIC decisions are being reported in any > journals. > > I would be grateful to all for any help on the above two aspects. > > Kind regards, > > KG. > > ________________________________ > From: Neeraj Kumar <[email protected] <neeraj.com%40gmail.com>> > To: [email protected] <rti_india%40yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Friday, 3 April, 2009 10:40:52 AM > Subject: Re: [rti_india] Compilation on "DECISIONS OF CIC ON SECTION > 8(1)(j)" > > Dear Mr. Krishnamoorthi, > you have done such a wonderful job. > > regards, > > Neeraj Kumar > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:17 PM, T N Krishnamoorthi > <[email protected]<tnkeealhw%40yahoo.co.in> > >wrote: > > > DECISIONS OF CIC ON SECTION 8(1)(j) > > > > Though the RTI Act enables every Citizen to obtain the information from > the > > Public Authority, some information's were restricted under Section 8(1) > of > > the RTI Act. Among the exemption from the disclosure of the information > > under Sec 8(1), there are ten sub sections vide (a) to (j). As there is > no > > specific guidelines/clarifications regarding the above sections are > > available except the circulars issued from time to time, the only > available > > alternate source to seek for guidance is the Decisions of Central > > Information Commission (CIC). This compilation was made by summing up the > > Decisions of CIC on the various issues of Section 8(1)(j) for enhancing > the > > knowledge on RTI to both Information seeker as well as Information > provider. > > > > Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI act is re produced below: > > > > " 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 authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger > public > > interest justifies the disclosure of such information" > > > > The issues covered in the Section 8(1)(j) are "personal information", "no > > relationship to any public activity or interest", "unwarranted invasion > of > > the privacy" and "larger public interest". > > > > List 1 - " Personal Information" :- > > > > The following decisions were issued by the CIC which will further brief > the > > provisions of section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act in general and the issue of " > > Personal Information" in particular . The gists of such decisions were > > compiled as List 1: > > > > 1.1 ACR to retired employee: > > > > The PIO has amongst the various RTI applications of the appellant > (retired > > employee ) refused to give him copies of his ACR. The Commission directs > the > > PIO to give copies of all his ACRs to the appellant. [Decision No. CIC > > /WB/A/2008/00172/SG/2409 Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00172/SG] > > > > 1.2 Annual confidential report:- > > > > In regard to the annual confidential report of any officer, it is our > view > > that what is contained therein is undoubtedly `personal information' > about > > that employee. The ACRs are protected from disclosure because arguably > such > > disclosure seriously harm interpersonal relationship in a given > > organization. [CIC/AT/A/2006/00069-13 July,2006] > > > > 1.3 Employees' personal information > > > > .....The information which the appellant has solicited in respect of a > > third party, is clearly of a very personal nature. There is no reason why > > any person should get information about a Government employee in respect > of > > the family members listed on the CGHS Card, the name of the Dispensary, > > whether that employee is married, the name of his wife, the date of his > > informing the public authority about his marriage, the names of his > nominees > > for the GPF and CGEIS and other documents, the dates on which the forms > have > > been filled, and whether any disciplinary action is pending against him. > > Apart from being personal information, disclosure of such information > serves > > no public purpose. It is quite possible that disclosure of such > information > > may lead to unwarranted harassment and intimidation of the employee by > other > > parties. The Commission has to exercise utmost caution in authorizing > > disclosure of personal information of employees of public authorities. > > Except when dictated by overwhelming public purpose, such information is > > better left undisclosed under the provision of exemption Section 8(1)(j) > of > > the Act. [CIC/AT/A/2006/00311-3.11.2006] > > > > 1.4 Leave records without names > > > > ..... personal information, unconnected with the government affairs of an > > official, i.e., information relating to personal affairs of officials, > need > > not be disclosed. However, information, which are purely official could > be > > disclosed to the appellant. Therefore, the CPIO will furnish only the > number > > of officials who had been granted leave with out names etc; > > ......information sought (Pendency left out against the receipt, while > > proceeding on leave) being general in nature, need not be > > furnished;regarding other issues , be given without names; > > [174/ICPB/2006-4.12.2006] > > > > 1.5 LTC claim details:- > > > > The details about the amounts claimed as LTC, the block years for which > the > > claim was made, number of persons for whom claim made, dates of filing > the > > claim and disbursal, advance taken and adjustment if any, and the > sanction > > for using the LTC should be disclosed to the appellant. However, other > > personal details such as the names of the family members, their age, etc. > > which are personal in nature should be barred from disclosure > > [CIC/AT/A/2006/00317-10.10.2006] > > > > 1.6 Personal information:- > > > > In this particular case, the AA and the CPIO have not analyzed the > nuances > > of disclosure of the information as requested by the appellant > principally > > because they had concluded that such information need not be disclosed > under > > Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. What they ought to be examining is > whether > > disclosure of this information, if authorized, will jeopardize the > > functioning of the public authority in a manner that would attract > > provisions of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. > > > > The Commission, therefore, while holding that the matter in this > > RTI-application cannot be said to be `personal', that would attract the > > exemption under Section 8(1)(j), is not inclined to authorize disclosure > > straight away, before other aspects of such disclosure are fully examined > > (i.e. under sub-sections of Section 8(1)). > > > > The matter is, therefore, remitted back to the AA, with a direction that > he > > shall examine whether, given the nature of the disclosure sought, it > would > > attract any of the sub-sections of the Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, other > > than Section 8(1)(j). The AA should also examine whether Section 10(1) > > (severability provision) can be invoked to disclose that part of the > > information which may not come within the bar of any of the exemption > > sub-sections of the RTI Act. [F.No.CIC/AT/A/2007/01105 Dated, the 21st > > January, 2008.] > > > > 1.7 Personal Information-defining:- > > > > ....We have no clear definition of what is meant by "invasion of privacy" > > within the RTI Act. We have no equivalent of UK's Data Protection Act, > 1998, > > Sec 2 of which, titled Sensitive Personal Data, reads as follows: > > In this Act "sensitive personal data" means personal data consisting of > > information as to: > > a) The racial or ethnic origin of the data subject > > b) His political opinions > > c) His religious beliefs or other beliefs of a similar nature > > d) Whether he is a member of a Trade Union > > e) His physical or mental health or condition > > f) His sexual life > > g) The commission or alleged commission by him of any offence > > h) Any proceedings for any offence committed or alleged to have been > > committed by him, the disposal of such proceedings or the sentence of any > > court in such proceedings. > > > > .......On the other hand, the US Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts, § > > 652 define the Intrusion to Privacy in the following manner: > > "One, who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the > > solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is > > subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the > > intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person". [Appeal > > No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01460 dated 27.11.2007] > > > > 1.8 Roster/vacancy position of employees > > > > Information related to the Roster/vacancy position of employees,which are > > neither confidential nor personal information. [196/IC(A)/2006-23 > Aug,2006.] > > > > 1.9 Tour Travel Expense:- > > > > The information sought is required by the appellant to defend his case > > properly. The information sought by the appellant relate to the tour > > programme and travel expenses of a public servant, which cannot be > treated > > as personal information.[Appeal No. 07/IC(A)/CIC/2006 Dated, the 6th > March, > > 2006] > > > > List 2 - "No relationship to any public activity or interest":- > > > > The gist of decisions issued by the CIC which will deals with the > > provisions of section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act and the issue of "No > relationship > > to any public activity or interest" were compiled as List 2: > > > > 2.1 I.T. Returns > > > > Income Tax Returns filed by an assessee are confidential information > which > > include details of commercial activities and that it relates to third > > person. These are submitted in fiduciary capacities. There is no public > > action involved in the matter. Disclosure is exempted under s.8(1)(j). > > [22/IC(A)/2006 - 30 March.] > > > > 2.2 Leave records > > > > It was purely a personal matter with no public interest involved. Hence, > > the information need not be disclosed. However, if the Appellant could > prove > > to the satisfaction of the Commission that public interest was involved > in > > the matter, then the Commission could re-examine the matter. > > [CIC/OK/A/2006/00189-3 November, 2006] > > > > 2.3 Misuse of RTI Act :- > > > > The Commission is in possession of letters which the appellant, Mr. > Kishur > > J. Aggarwal, Editor-in-Chief of a number of Daily Papers / Magazines has > > written to almost all the PSUs for eliciting their support for promotion > of > > his business interests. His Company, named as NUURRIE Media Ltd. has > > launched thirty nine (39) websites covering the activities of all > sections > > of the society. He has been asking for the favour of carrying out > > advertisements in his magazines / websites. Clearly, his modus operandi > is > > to use RTI for influencing PSUs for promotion of his business, rather > than > > serving the social interests such as ensuring transparency and efficiency > in > > functioning of PSUs. This is indeed a blatant misuse of RTI Act which > ought > > to be discouraged. As an enlightened citizen, every information seeker > > should resort to RTI Act responsibly, as most people are doing and > reaping > > the benefits of this powerful Act. [Appeal No. 24/IC(A)/2006 F.No. > > 11/78/2006/CIC > > Dated, the 10th April, 2006 ] > > > > 2.4 PAN Number:- > > > > ....... PAN is a statuary number, which functions as a unique > > identification for each tax payers. Making PAN public can result in > misuse > > of this information by other persons to quote wrong PAN while entering > into > > financial transactions and also could compromise the privacy of the > personal > > financial transactions linked with PAN. This also holds true for TAN. > > Information relating to PAN and TAN, including the dated of issue of > these > > numbers, are composite and confidential in nature under Section 138 of > > Income Tax Act. The appellant has not made a case of bonafide public > > interest for disclosure of PAN/TAN Numbers of 26 companies on grounds of > > submissions of their application for above purposes or filing of tax > returns > > [Appeal 05/IC(A)/CIC/2006 Dated, the 3rd March, 2006] > > > > List 3 -"unwarranted invasion of the privacy":- > > > > The gist of decisions issued by the CIC which will covers the provisions > of > > section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act as well as the issue of "unwarranted invasion > of > > the privacy" were compiled as List 3: > > > > 3.1 Bio-Data : - > > > > when a candidate submits his application for appointment to a post under > a > > P.A., the same becomes a public document and he cannot object to the > > disclosure on the ground of invasion of privacy and directed the PIO to > > provide copies of the bio-data. [ ICPB/A-9/CIC/2006-3 April,2006.] > > > > 3.2 Customer details:- > > > > The complainant asked for certain information relating to a customer of > the > > respondent. The information sought was denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act, > after > > obtaining concurrence of the third party u/s 11 of the Act. > > > > .....The respondent is expected to maintain confidentiality of the > details > > of information of its customers. There is no public interest in > disclosure > > of such information. The CPIO has therefore correctly denied u/s 8(1)(j) > of > > the Act, the disclosure of information relating to its customers. > [Decision > > No.815/IC(A)/2007 F. No.CIC/PB/C/2007/00041 Dated, the 8th June, 2007] > > > > 3.3 Medical Report:- > > > > As far as medical reports are concerned, they are purely personal to the > > individuals and furnishing of the copies of medical reports would amount > to > > invasion of privacy of the individuals and need not be furnished. However > > PIO will disclose to the requester the information whether all the four > > candidates had been declared medically fit or not .[ ICPB/A-9/CIC/2006-3 > > April,2006.] > > > > List 4 - "larger public interest":- > > > > The decisions issued by the CIC which broadly deals with the issue of > > "larger public interest" under the section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act were > compiled > > as List 4: > > > > 4.1 Educational Records:- > > > > ......One CPIO refused to provide copies of educational records submitted > > by the employee, whose details have been solicited. Thereafter the appeal > > was considered unnecessary on the background that the appellant could not > > explain as to how he is affected in the matter or what was the public > > interest in disclosure of personal and official details of the > respondent's > > employee. [Decision No.3807/IC(A)/2009 F. No.CIC/MA/A/2009/000135 Dated, > the > > 26th March, 2009] > > > > 4.2 File Noting:- > > > > .....the plea taken by respondents is that the disclosure does not > justify > > "larger public interest". However, respondents have been unable to cite > the > > clause u/s 8 (1) (j) in which the larger public interest has been cited > as a > > permissible ground for refusing information, whereas in most sub sections > of > > 8 (1) which allows exemption from disclosure of information, public > interest > > is repeatedly cited as a reason for disclosing information otherwise > > considered exempt except in the case of information falling u/s 8 (1) sub > > section (j), but even in that case only if it has "no relationship" to > any > > public interest, which in this case is nobody's argument..... " > > > > .......Having examined the records and heard the respondents, we find > > nothing in pages 3 to 16 of the note-sheet of File No. 7/6/2002-EIII to > be > > exempt from disclosure under any of the provisions of the sec. 8(1). > > .....The noting is in fact, record of a very public activity of direct > > concern to public interest. [Adjunct to Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01015 > dated > > 20.10.2007; Decision on 26.3.2009] > > > > List 5 - General:- > > > > The decisions issued by the CIC in which combinations of various issues > of > > section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act were dealt by the commission were compiled as > > List 5: > > > > 5.1 Annual property returns > > > > The information in the annual property returns is retained by the public > > authority in sealed covers / or in some other mode under proper "secrecy" > > classification and used only when the public servant, whose return it may > > be, faces a charge or an enquiry. It is not held as a public information, > > but rather a safety valve a deterrent to public servants that > investments > > or transactions etc. in properties should not be done without the > knowledge > > of the public authority. While there may be an arguable case for > disclosing > > all such information furnished to the various Public Authorities by the > > public servants, till such time the nature of this information remains a > > confidential entrustment by the public servant to the Public Authority, > it > > shall be covered by section 8 (1) (j) and cannot be routinely disclosed. > It > > will also attract the exemption under Section 8 (1) (e) and in certain > cases > > the provisions of Section 11 (1), being an information entrusted to the > > public authority by a third person, i.e. the public servant filing > property > > return. On the whole, property returns of public servants, which are > > required to be compulsorily filed by a set date annually by all public > > servants with their respective public authorities, being an information > to > > be used exceptionally, must be held to serve no general public purpose > whose > > disclosure the RTI Act must compel. [CIC/AT/A/2006/00134-10 July, 2006.] > > > > 5.2 Bank Loan details:- > > > > The appellant has sought the details of loans already sanctioned and > > disbursed to a particular Company. He has however not indicated the > bonafied > > public interest in seeking > > the information. The appellant authority of the Bank has contended that > the > > details of properties and securities submitted by the borrowers are in > the > > nature of commercial confidence, the disclosure of which is exempted > under > > Section 8(d) of the RTI Act. Also, the information sought relate to > > collateral and securities taken by the concerned Company and its > directors, > > which are personal information. This has no relationship with any public > > activity or interest. Disclosure of such information would cause > unwarranted > > invasion of privacy of individual / third party, as per Section 8(1) (j). > > [Appeal No. 19/IC(A)/2006 > > F.No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00057 Dated, the 29th March, 2006] > > > > 5.3 CBI investigation report:- > > > > ........the appellant has asked for copies of correspondence exchanged > > between the respondent and the CBI. He has also asked for a copy of CBI > > investigation report, which is about 20 years old, in respect of his > father. > > The CPIO has replied and refused to furnish the information u/s 8(1)(j) > of > > the Act. > > > > .......Since the information asked for relate to an action taken by the > > respondent in 1988, i.e. over 20 years old, there is no justification for > > invoking section 8(1)(j) of the Act, for denial of information. The CPIO > is, > > therefore, directed to furnish the information asked for. [Decision > > No.3796/IC(A)/2009 F. No.CIC/MA/A/2009/000145 Dated, the 23rd March, > 2009] > > > > 5.4 Commission paid to an LIC agent > > > > The information sought relate to the commission paid to the appellant > > herself, as per her entitlement in accordance with the norms and > guidelines > > of the LIC. The information about her own entitlements cannot be treated > as > > confidential. [CIC/MA/A/2006/00505-6.10.2006] > > > > 5.5 Copy of complaint:- > > > > The Appellant had requested the for a copy of the complaint made by one > JWO > > ............ which the welfare section had forwarded to the SSP, > Allahabad. > > The CPIO, in his reply denied the information on the ground that the > > information sought related to the domestic problems of the said JWO and > this > > was personal information which had no relations with any public activity > or > > interest and was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the > Right > > to Information (RTI) Act. > > > > ..... The Respondent showed us the original complaint filed by the JWO > > which had been forwarded by the welfare section to the police. The > > Respondent submitted that the disclosure of this complaint to the > Appellant > > could expose the JWO to further harassment and vengeful action in the > hands > > of the Appellant and thereby jeopardise the life and security of the said > > JWO and his family. We tend to agree with the submissions of the > Respondent. > > Since this complaint has been forwarded to the local police, the police > > should be allowed to continue with the investigation, if any. The > complaint > > being a purely > > personal one and having no relationship to any public activity or > interest, > > there is no case > > for disclosing it to the Appellant. [Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00485-SM > dated > > 23.11.2007] > > > > 5.6 Copy of disciplinary proceedings of others:- > > > > The appellant, an ex- employee of the bank, sought for copies of various > > documents connected with the initiated against him and had also asked for > > copies of memos issued/disciplinary proceedings initiated against some > other > > officials. The CPIO while furnishing copies of all documents connected > with > > the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, declined to furnish > the > > information sought for in respect of other officials applying the > provisions > > of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. > > > > .... in so far as those relating other officials, I am in agreement with > > the decision of CPIO/AA that the same is exempt under the provisions of > > Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. [Appeal No.550/ICPB/2007 F.No.PBA/07/310 > > June 6, 2007] > > > > 5.7 Document related to investigation:- > > > > The complainant had asked for certain documents connected with an > > investigation relating to fraud and corrupt practices, including sexual > > harassment case, in which the complainant was alleged to have been > involved. > > The information sought was denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act. > > > > .....the denial of documents pertaining to the corrupt practices and > > investigations into such matters, as above, are justified u/s 8(1)(j) of > the > > Act. [Decision No.803/IC(A)/2007 F. No.CIC/PB/C/2007/00007 Dated, the 7th > > June, 2007] > > > > 5.8 Funds in PF accounts:- > > > > As regards disclosure of information relating to the accumulation of > funds > > in PF accounts of the identified members, the CPIO has correctly applied > > exemption u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act, from disclosure of information. > > > > 5.9 Information about his own case:- > > > > The CPIO has indicated in respect of item nos. 1 to 6 he is not in a > > position to provide information since the information is of personal > nature > > and it does not relate to any public activity or interest hence he denied > to > > provide this information under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. This stand of > the > > CPIO is totally wrong for the simple reason the Complainant is requesting > > information about his own case. Under these circumstances the application > of > > section 8(1)(j) is not relevant. Section 8(1)(j) can be applied only when > > one seeks information of third party. This Commission has given a number > of > > decisions in this regard including the full Bench decision in Appeal No. > > CIC/WB/A/2006/00469 & 00394 in the matter of Mr. R.K. Singh Vs. Lok Sabha > > Secretariat. As per section 8(1)(j), there should be an element of > invasion > > of privacy of individual. Whereas one seeks about information about his > own > > case, there is no invasion of privacy, hence, section 8(1)(j) cannot be > > applied. I, therefore, direct the CPIO to provide information with > reference > > to paras 1 to 6, if they do not fall under any other exemptions provided > > under section 8(1) of the RTI Act. In respect of item no.7, the CPIO has > > stated that this information is relating to third party and hence he has > not > > provided the same. I agree with the stand taken by the CPIO. I also agree > > with the CPIO in respect of item no.8. [Appeal No.1457/ICPB/2008 > > F.No.PBC/07/396 February 8, 2008] > > > > 5.10 Loan sanctioned by bank:- > > > > .......the appellant has sought for information in a tabular form of the > > loans sanctioned by him and the AA has applied the provisions of Section > > 8(1)(j) and 13(1) of Banking companies Act. In the normal course, the > > decision of the AA is fully justified but not in the present case, as the > > appellant has sought for details of only the loans sanctioned by him and > on > > which basis he has been charged in the disciplinary as well as criminal > > proceeding. Therefore, the CPIO is bound to furnish the information and > > cannot seek exemption either under RTI Act or the Banking companies Act. > > > > ...... In case the information sought cannot be given in a tabular form, > > the same may be furnished in such form as the CPIO finds it convenient. > > [Appeals No.376-382/ICPB/2006 F.No.PBA/06/440, 476 to 481 ; March 5, > 2007] > > > > 5.11 Own personal case:- > > > > The information sought by the appellant has been denied applying the > > provisions of Section 8(1)(j) as he has sought information about his own > > personal case. > > > > "Section 8(1)(j) reads - "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 authority, as the case may be, is > > satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of > such > > information". > > > > This Section has to be read as a whole. If done so, it would be apparent > > that that "personal information" does not mean information relating to > the > > information seeker, but about a third party. That is why, in the Section, > it > > is stated "unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual". If one > > were to seek information about himself or his own case, the question of > > invasion of privacy of his own self does not arise. If one were to ask > > information about a third party and if it were to invade the privacy of > the > > individual, the information seeker can be denied the information on the > > ground that disclosure would invade the privacy of a third party. > Therefore, > > when a citizen seeks information about his own case and as long as the > > information sought is not exempt in terms of other provisions of Section > 8 > > of RTI Act, this Section cannot be applied to deny the information." Thus > > when a citizen seeks information relating to his own affairs, the same > > cannot be denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. [Appeal > No.374/ICPB/2006 > > F.No.PBA/07/17 March 5, 2007] > > > > 5.12 Pension paid by Post Office:- > > > > A request was received by the Department of Posts for addresses, amount > of > > pension paid of postal pensioners from post offices under Gaziabad > > H.P.O.,which was rejected. CIC held that the P.I.O. has rightly applied > > s.8(1)(j). [ICPB/A-18/CIC/2006- 10 May, 2006.] > > > > 5.13 Reasons for rejection of requests > > > > The PIO has to give the reasons for rejection of the request for > > information as required under Section 7(8)(i). Merely quoting the bare > > clause of the Act does not imply that the reasons have been given. The > PIO > > should have intimated as to how he had come to the conclusion that rule > > 8(1)(j) was applicable in this case . [CIC/OK/C/2006/00010 7 > July,2006.] > > > > 5.14 Terms and conditions of appointment:- > > > > The appellant had asked for a copy of the terms and conditions of > > appointment of Sh. Raha, ex CMD, ONGC. The CPIO refused to furnish the > > information u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act, on the ground that the information > > sought relates to personal information, disclosure of which has no > > relationship with any public activity or interest. > > > > U/s 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, public authorities are required to disclose > > "the powers and duties of its officers and employees". And, u/s > 4(1)(b)(x) > > "the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, > > including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations" > should > > also be put in public domain. Accordingly, there is no reason as to why > the > > terms and conditions of appointment of officers, which incorporate duties > > and responsibilities as well as the compensation, including other service > > benefits, as asked for by the appellant, should not be disclosed. In view > of > > this, the orders passed by the appellate authority is untenable. > [Decision > > No.600/IC(A)/2007 F. No.CIC/MA/A/2007/00048 Dated, the 19th March, 2007] > > > > 5.15 Traveling expenses : > > > > The traveling expenses were charged to the public account,disclosure if > the > > information can not be denied on the ground of `personal > information','not a > > public activity' and `no public interest' etc.Travel had been performed > as a > > part and in discharge of official duties and the records related the same > > are public records and therefore,a citizen has the right to seek > disclosure > > of the same. > > [63/ICPB/2006- 4 August,2006] > > 5.16 Work allocation:- > > > > .......The Appellant had requested the CPIO for information regarding the > > work allocated to one labourer. The CPIO replied and denied the > information > > under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. > > > > ....We carefully considered the contents of his appeal and we also heard > > the submissions of the Respondent. We do not at all agree with the > decision > > of the CPIO and the first Appellate Authority that the information sought > is > > exempt from disclosure under any of the provisions of the Right to > > Information (RTI) Act. In fact, section 4 of the Right to Information > (RTI) > > Act mandates every Public Authority to publish, on its own, details of > the > > work assigned to the employees of that Authority. We, therefore, direct > the > > CPIO to provide the information. [Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/01005-SM dated > > 11.03.2008] > > > > The readers are advised to go through the full text of the decisions > which > > are available in the web site of Central Information Commission ( > > www.gov.in) before use. > > > > Compiled on Public Interest by: > > > > Er T N Krishnamoorthi > > Deputy Chief Engineer, > > Andaman Harbour Works > > Little Andaman > > A & N Islands. > > Mob : 09434289673. > > > > > > > > -- > __________________________ > RTI HELPLINE > 0 9718 100 180 > ---------------------------------------------- > Don't give up your fight > > Neeraj Kumar > Right to Information Campaign > D - 59, 3rd Floor, Pandav Nagar, > Delhi - 110 092 > Tel. 011 - 2248 5139 > ----------------------------------------------- > > ****** LEGAL DISCLAIMER ****** > This E-Mail may contain some information related to Right to Information > (RTI) Act, 2005. If you have received this e-mail in error and are not the > intended recipient/s, you may use this information and for any other > clarification feel free to contact. You are also hereby notified that any > use, any form of reproduction, copying, disclosure, distribution and/or > publication of this e-mail, its contents or its attachment/s is not > prohibited. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to > http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/ > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[email protected] mailto:[email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
