Page 1

1

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Special     Leave     Petition     (Civil)     No.     27734              of     2012   (@ CC 14781/2012)

Girish Ramchandra Deshpande .. Petitioner

Versus

Cen. Information Commr. & Ors. .. Respondents

  O     R     D     E     R      

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 ‘the RTI Act’)

Page 2

2

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 as defined in clause (j) 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  

details relating to third respondent, who was employed as an  

Enforcement Officer in Sub-Regional Office, Akola, now working in  

the State of Madhya Pradesh.  As many as 15 queries were made  

to which the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur gave  

the following reply on 15.9.2008:

”As to Point No.1: Copy of appointment order of Shri  A.B. Lute, is in 3 pages.  You have  sought the details of salary in  respect of Shri A.B. Lute, which

Page 3

3

relates to personal information the  disclosures of which has no  relationship to any public activity  or interest, it would cause  unwarranted invasion of the  privacy of individual hence denied  as per the RTI provision under  Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.

As to Point No.2: Copy of order of granting  Enforcement Officer Promotion to  Shri A.B. Lute, is in 3 Number.  Details of salary to the post along  with statutory and other  deductions of Mr. Lute is denied to  provide as per RTI provisions  under Section 8(1)(j) for the  reasons mentioned above.

As to Point NO.3: All the transfer orders of Shri A.B.  Lute, are in 13 Numbers.  Salary  details is rejected as per the  provision under Section 8(1)(j) for  the reason mentioned above.

As to Point No.4: The copies of memo, show cause  notice, censure issued to Mr. Lute,  are not being provided on the  ground that it would cause  unwarranted invasion of the  privacy of the individual and has no  relationship to any public activity  or interest.  Please see RTI  provision under Section 8(1)(j).

Page 4

4

As to Point No.5: Copy of EPF (Staff & Conditions)  Rules 1962 is in 60 pages.

As to Point No.6: Copy of return of assets and  liabilities in respect of Mr. Lute  cannot be provided as per the  provision of RTI Act under Section  8(1)(j) as per the reason explained  above at point No.1.

As to Point No.7: Details of investment and other  related details are rejected as per  the provision of RTI Act under  Section 8(1)(j) as per the reason  explained above at point No.1.

As to Point No.8: Copy of report of item wise and  value wise details of gifts accepted  by Mr. Lute, is rejected as per the  provisions of RTI Act under Section  8(1)(j) as per the reason explained  above at point No.1.

As to Point No.9: Copy of details of movable,  immovable properties of Mr. Lute,  the request to provide the same is  rejected as per the RTI Provisions  under Section 8(1)(j).

As to Point No.10: Mr. Lute is not claiming for TA/DA  for attending the criminal case  pending at JMFC, Akola.

As to Point No.11: Copy of Notification is in 2  numbers.

Page 5

5

As to Point No.12: Copy of certified true copy of  charge sheet issued to Mr. Lute –  The matter pertains with head  Office, Mumbai.  Your application is  being forwarded to Head Office,  Mumbai as per Section 6(3) of the  RTI Act, 2005.

As to Point No.13: Certified True copy of complete  enquiry proceedings initiated  against Mr. Lute –  It would cause  unwarranted invasion of privacy of  individuals and has no relationship  to any public activity or interest.  Please see RTI provisions under  Section 8(1)(j).

As to Point No.14: It would cause unwarranted  invasion of privacy of individuals  and has no relationship to any  public activity or interest, hence  denied to provide.

As to Point No.15: Certified true copy of second show  cause notice –  It would cause  unwarranted invasion of privacy of  individuals and has no relationship  to any public activity or interest,  hence denied to provide.”

Page 6

6

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the  

CIC.  The CIC passed the order on 18.6.2009, the operative  

portion of the order reads as under:

“The question for consideration is whether the aforesaid  information sought by the Appellant can be treated as  ‘personal information’ as defined in clause (j) of Section  8(1) of the RTI Act.  It may be pertinent to mention  that this issue came up before the Full Bench of the  Commission in Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2008/000628  (Milap Choraria v. Central Board of Direct Taxes)  and the Commission vide its decision dated 15.6.2009  held that “the Income Tax return have been rightly  held to be personal information exempted from  disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI  Act by the CPIO and the Appellate Authority, and the  appellant herein has not been able to establish that a  larger public interest would be served by disclosure of  this information.  This logic would hold good as far as  the ITRs of Shri Lute are concerned.  I would like to  further observe that the information which has been  denied to the appellant essentially falls in two parts –  (i) relating to the personal matters pertaining to his  services career; and (ii) Shri Lute’s assets & liabilities,  movable and immovable properties and other financial  aspects.  I have no hesitation in holding that this  information also qualifies to be the ‘personal  information’  as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of  the RTI Act and the appellant has not been able to  convince the Commission that disclosure thereof is in  larger public interest.”

Page 7

7

5. The CIC, after holding so directed the second respondent to  

disclose the information at paragraphs 1, 2, 3 (only posting  

details), 5, 10, 11, 12,13 (only copies of the posting orders) to  

the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of the  

order.  Further, it was held that the information sought for with  

regard to the other queries did not qualify for disclosure.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a writ  

petition No.4221 of 2009 which came up for hearing before a  

learned Single Judge and the court dismissed the same vide order  

dated 16.2.2010.  The matter was taken up by way of Letters  

Patent Appeal No.358 of 2011 before the Division Bench and the  

same was dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2011.  Against the  

said order this special leave petition has been filed.

7. Shri A.P. Wachasunder, learned counsel appearing for the  

petitioner submitted that the documents sought for vide Sl.  

Nos.1, 2 and 3 were pertaining to appointment and promotion

Page 8

8

and Sl. No.4 and 12 to 15 were related to disciplinary action and  

documents at Sl. Nos.6 to 9 pertained to assets and liabilities and  

gifts received by the third respondent and the disclosure of those  

details, according to the learned counsel, would not cause  

unwarranted invasion of privacy.   

8. Learned counsel also submitted that the privacy appended  

to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act widens the scope of documents  

warranting disclosure and if those provisions are properly  

interpreted, it could not be said that documents pertaining to  

employment of a person holding the post of enforcement officer  

could be treated as documents having no relationship to any  

public activity or interest.   

9. Learned counsel also pointed out that in view of Section 6(2)  

of the RTI Act, the applicant making request for information is not  

obliged to give any reason for the requisition and the CIC was not  

justified in dismissing his appeal.  

Page 9

9

10. This Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and  

another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others (2011) 8 SCC  

497 while dealing with the right of examinees to inspect  

evaluated answer books in connection with the examination  

conducted by the CBSE Board had an occasion to consider in  

detail the aims and object of the RTI Act as well as the reasons  

for the introduction of the exemption clause in the RTI Act,  

hence, it is unnecessary, for the purpose of this case to further  

examine the meaning and contents of Section 8 as a whole.   

11. We are, however, in this case primarily concerned with the  

scope and interpretation to clauses (e), (g) and (j) of Section  

8(1) of the RTI Act which are extracted herein below:

“8. Exemption from disclosure of information.- (1)  Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there  shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-  

(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary  relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied  that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure  of such information;  

Page 10

10

(g) information, the disclosure of which would  endanger the life or physical safety of any person or  identify the source of information or assistance given in  confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;   

(j) 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.”    

12. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show  

cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third  

respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and  

immovable properties and also the details of his investments,  

lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions.  

Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have  

accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends  

and relatives at the marriage of his son.  The information mostly  

sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third  

respondent.  The question that has come up for consideration is

Page 11

11

whether the above-mentioned information sought for qualifies to  

be “personal information” as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1)  

of the RTI Act.

13. 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 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.  Of course, in a given case,  

if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public  

Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the

Page 12

12

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.

14. 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.   

15. The petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide  

public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such  

information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the  

individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

16. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not  

succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for

Page 13

13

the larger public interest.  That being the fact, we are not inclined  

to entertain this special leave petition.  Hence, the same is  

dismissed.

……………….……………………..J. (K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN)

………………………………….…..J. (DIPAK MISRA)

New Delhi October 3, 2012