Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. - RTI Matter

In above noted matter bearing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012, hon’ble bench of Supreme Court of India comprising of Mr. K. S. Radhakrishanan J. and Mr. Dipak Mishra J. has dismissed the SLP on October 3, 2012, while holding that personal matters of individual pertaining to his service / career and details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stands exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless it involves a larger public interest.

The question of law to be decided by hon’ble court was whether the Central Information Commissioner acting under the Right to Information Act, 2005 was right in denying information regarding the personal matters of individual 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.

The petitioner in SLP had 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 had 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. In fact most of such information was related to the income tax returns of the third respondent.

Central Information Commissioner and courts below denied to provide those information stating them to be personal information, which is not within purview of Right to Information Act, 2005. Hence, SLP was filed and while deciding the issue, hon'ble Supreme Court referred and interpreted 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;

(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.”

Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that 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 larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

Similarly, 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.

Having observed as above, hon'ble Supreme Court declined to entertain above mentioned SLP and dismissed the same.