REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.22 OF 2009

Canara Bank Rep. by  its Deputy Gen. Manager                 ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

C.S. Shyam & Anr.       …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment

and  order  dated  20.09.2007  passed  by  the  High

Court  of  Kerala at  Ernakulam in Writ  Appeal  No.

2100 of 2007 whereby the High Court disposed of

the  writ  appeal  filed  by  the  appellant  herein  and

upheld  the  judgment  passed  by  the  Single  Judge

dismissing  the  writ  petition filed by the  appellant

1

herein  challenging  the   order  of  the  Central

Information Commission holding that the appellant

must provide the information sought by  respondent

No.1  herein  under  the  Right  to  Information  Act,

2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2) Few relevant facts need mention to appreciate

the controversy involved in appeal.  

3) The appellant herein is a nationalized Bank. It

has a branch in District Malappuram in the State of

Kerala. Respondent No. 1, at the relevant time, was

working in the said Branch as a clerical staff.

4) On 01.08.2006, respondent No.1 submitted an

application to the Public Information Officer of the

appellant-Bank  under  Section  6  of  the  Act  and

sought information regarding transfer  and posting

of  the  entire  clerical  staff  from  01.01.2002  to

31.07.2006  in  all  the  branches  of  the

appellant-Bank.  

2

5) The information was sought on 15 parameters

with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical

staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual

employees.  This information was in relation to the

personal details of individual employee such as the

date  of  his/her  joining,  designation,  details  of

promotion  earned,  date  of  his/her  joining  to  the

Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who

issued the transfer orders etc. etc.

6) On 29.08.2006, the Public Information Officer

of the Bank expressed his inability  to furnish the

details sought by respondent No. 1 as, in his view,

firstly,  the information sought was protected from

being disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act and

secondly, it had no nexus with any public interest

or activity.  

7) Respondent  No.1,  felt  aggrieved,  filed  appeal

before  the  Chief  Public  Information  Officer.   By

3

order  dated  30.09.2006,  the  Chief  Public

Information Officer agreeing with the view taken by

the Public Information Officer dismissed the appeal

and  affirmed  the  order  of  the  Public  Information

Officer.

8) Felt  aggrieved,  respondent  No.1  carried  the

matter  in  further  appeal  before  the  Central

Information  Commission.  By  order  dated

26.02.2007, the appeal was allowed and accordingly

directions were issued to the Bank to furnish the

information  sought  by  respondent  No.1  in  his

application.

9) Against  the  said  order,  the  appellant-Bank

filed writ petition before the High Court.  The Single

Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition

filed by the appellant-Bank.   Challenging the said

order,  the  appellant-Bank filed  writ  appeal  before

the High Court.  

4

10) By impugned order, the Division Bench of the

High  Court  dismissed  the  appellant's  writ  appeal

and affirmed the order  of  the Central  Information

Commission,  which has given rise to filing of  this

appeal.

11) Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

appellant and on perusal of the record of the case,

we are inclined to allow the appeal,  set  aside the

impugned  order  and  dismiss  the  application

submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of

the Act.

12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved

herein  remains  no  more  res  integra and  stands

settled  by  two  decisions  of  this  Court  in  Girish

Ramchandra Deshpande vs.  Central Information

Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K.

Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794,

5

it  may  not  be  necessary  to  re-examine  any  legal

issue urged in this appeal.

13) In  Girish  Ramchandra  Deshpande's case

(supra),  the petitioner  therein (Girish)  had sought

some personal information of one employee working

in Sub Regional  Office  (provident  fund)  Akola.  All

the  authorities,  exercising  their  respective  powers

under the Act, declined the prayer for furnishing the

information  sought  by  the  petitioner.  The  High

Court in writ petition filed by the petitioner upheld

the  orders.  Aggrieved  by  all  the  order,  he  filed

special  leave  to  appeal  in  this  Court.  Their

Lordships dismissed the appeal and upholding the

orders passed by the High Court held as under:-

“12. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show-cause notices and orders  of  censure/punishment,  etc.  are qualified  to  be  personal  information  as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in  an  organisation  is  primarily  a  matter

6

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. Of course, in a given case, if 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,  appropriate  orders  could  be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.

13. The details disclosed by a person in his income  tax  returns  are  “personal information”  which  stand  exempted  from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 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.”

14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned

principle of law applies to the facts of this case on

all  force.  It  is  for  the  reasons  that,  firstly,  the

information sought by respondent No.1 of individual

employees  working  in  the  Bank  was  personal  in

nature;   secondly,  it  was  exempted  from  being

7

disclosed under Section 8(j)  of  the Act and lastly,

neither  respondent  No.1  disclosed  any  public

interest much less larger public interest involved in

seeking such information of the individual employee

and nor  any finding was recorded by  the  Central

Information Commission and the High Court as to

the  involvement  of  any  larger  public  interest  in

supplying such information to  respondent No.1.  

15) It is for these reasons, we are of the considered

view that the application made by respondent No.1

under Section 6 of the Act was wholly misconceived

and  was,  therefore,  rightly  rejected  by  the  Public

Information  Officer  and  Chief  Public  Information

Officer  whereas  wrongly  allowed  by  the  Central

Information Commission and the High Court.

16) In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal,

set aside the order of the High Court and Central

Information  Commission  and  restore  the  orders

8

passed  by  the  Public  Information  Officer  and  the

Chief Public Information Officer.   As a result,  the

application  submitted  by  respondent  No.1  to  the

appellant-Bank  dated  01.08.2006  (Annexure-P-1)

stands rejected.

               ………...................................J.  [R.K. AGRAWAL]

                                                               …...……..................................J.

        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi; August 31, 2017  

9