GIRISH RAMCHANDRA DESHPANDEversusCEN. INFORMATION COMMR. & ORS.

                   [2012] 8 S.C.R. 1097


          GIRISH RAMCHANDRA DESHPANDE                          A
                             v.
          CEN. INFORMATION COMMR. & ORS.
      (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 27734 of 2012)

                    OCTOBER 3, 2012
                                                                B
   [K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]

      Right to Information Act, 2005 - s. 8(1) - 'Personal
information" as defined in clause OJ of s.8(1) - Scope and
interpretation - Petitioner submitted application before the C
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour,
Government of India) calling for various details relating to third
respondent, who was employed as Enforcement' Officer in a
Sub-Regional Office - The petitioner sought for copies of all
memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment D
awarded to the third respondent from his employer; details of
his movable and immovable properties, investments, lending
and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions and
also details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third
respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at E
the marriage of his son - Most details sought by the petitioner
were contained in the income tax returns of third respondent
- Whether the information sought for by the petitioner qualified
to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of s. 8(1)
and were thus exempted from disclosure - Held: The F
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 G
or public interest - On the other hand, such disclosure 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
                            1097                                H
    1098     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012) 8 S.C.R.


A 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 - The details disclosed by a person in his
   income tax returns are "personal information" which stand
B exempted from disclosure under clause (}) of s.8(1), 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 - In the
c instant case, the petitioner did not make a bona fide public
  interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such
  information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of
  the individual u/s. 8(1 )(}) - 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.
0
  qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (})
  of s.8(1) - Petifion accordingly dismissed.

       Central Board of Secondary Education and another v.
  AdityaBandopadhyay and others (2011) 8 SCC 497: 2011
E (11) SCR 1028 -       referred to.

                          Case Law Reference:

        2011 (11) SCR 1028            referred to           Para 10

F        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave
    Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 21.12.2011 of the High
  Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Nagpur in Letters
G Patent Appeal No. 358 of 2011.

         AP. Wachasunder, Jatin Zaveri, Neel Kamal Mishra for the
    Petitioner.

        The following Order of the Court was delivered
H
    GIRISH RAMCHANDRA DESHPANDE v. CEN.                     1099
             INFORMATION COMMR.

                          ORDER                                      A
    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     B
'the RTI Act') 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      C
as defined in clause G) 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        D
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:
                                                                     E
  "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 relates to personal
                       information the disclosures of which has      F
                       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 )G) of the Act.             G

  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
                                                                     H
    1100   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2012) 8 S.C.R.


A                        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 N0.3:   All the transfer orders of Shri A.B. Lute,
B
                         are in 13 Numbers. Salary details is
                         rejected as per the provision under
                         Section 8(1 )(j) for the reason mentioned
                         above.

c   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
D                        relationship to any public activity or
                         interest. Please see RTI provision under
                         Section 8(1 )(j).

    As to Point No.5:    Copy of EPF (Staff & Conditions) Rules
                         1962 is in 60 pages.
E
    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
F                        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
G                        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
H
  GIRISH RAMCHANDRA DESHPANDE v. CEN.                  1101
           INFORMATION COMMR.

                    RTI Act under Section 8(1 )U) as per the   A
                    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    8
                    RTI Provisions under Section 8(1 )U).

As to Point No.10: Mr. Lute is not claiming for TA/DA for
                   attending the criminal case pending at
                   JMFC, Akola.
                                                               c
As to Point No.11: Copy of Notification is in 2 numbers.

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
                                                               D
                   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 C'.Jmp!ete enquiry
                   proceedings initiated against Mr. Lute -    E
                   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 )U).                      F

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.
                                                               G
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
                                                               H
     1102    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 8 S.C.R.


A                          any public activity or interest, hence
                           denied to provide."

         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:
8
         "The question for consideration is whether the aforesaid
         information sought by the Appellant can be treated as
         'personal information' as defined in clause Ul of Section
         8(1) of the RTI Act. It may be pertinent to mention that this
c        issue .c;:ame 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
D       exempted from disclosure under clause U) 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
E       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
F       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 U) 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."
G
         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
H
    GIRISH RAMCHANDRA DESHPANDE v. CEN.                    1103
             INFORMATION COMMR.

from the date of the order. Further, it was held that the           A
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
                                                                    B
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      C
has been filed.

      7. Shri A.P. Wachasunder, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submitted that the documents sought for vide SI.
Nos.1, 2 and 3 were pertaining to appointment and promotion
and SI. No.4 and 12 to 15 were related to disciplinary action       D
and documents at SI. 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.
                                                                    E
     8. Learned counsel also submitted that the privacy
appended to Section 8(1)U) 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
                                                                    F
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   G
was not justified in dismissing his appeal.

    10. This Court in Central Board of Secondary Education
and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others (2011) 8
sec 497 while dealing with the right of examinees to inspect        H
     1104    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2012] 8 S.C.R.


A 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
s 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 G) of Section
C 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,-

D       (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
E       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
F       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
G
        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.
H
    GIRISH RAMCHANDRA DESHPANDE v. CEN.                        1105
             INFORMATION COMMR.

movable and immovable properties and also the details of his            A
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         B
income tax returns of the third respondent. The question that
has come up for consideration is whether the above-mentioned
information sought for qualifies to be "personal information" as
defined in clause U) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.

      13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below
                                                                        c
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 U) of Section 8(1) of the RTI
Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization          D
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       E
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             F
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 U) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless       G
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.
                                                                        H
    1106     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2012] 8 S.C.R.


A         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 )0) of the RTI Act.

B         16. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has
    not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for
    is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not
    inclined to entertain this special leave petition. Hence, the same
    is dismissed.

C B.B.B.                                             SLP dismissed