R.K. JAINversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR

                   [2013] 5 S.C.R, 411

                        R.K. JAIN                             A
                            v.
                 UNION OF INDIA & ANR:
             (Civil Appeal No. 3878 of 2013)
                     APRIL 16, 2013
                                                              B
         [G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI
                 MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.)

     Right to Information Act, 2005 - ss.8(1)(j) and 11 -
Information regarding ACR of public servant - Whether can C
be disclosed to third person - ACR record of an officer cannot
be disclosed to third person, except in cases involving
overriding public interest - However, such disclosure of
information would be after following the procedure under
s.11(1).                                                       D
     The appellant filed application u/s. 6 of Right to
Information Act, 2005, seeking information regarding
ACR of the Member, CESTAT, relating to adverse entries
in the ACR and 'the follow-up action' taken therein on the    E
question of her integrity. The statutory authorities denied
the same, on the ground that the information sought,
attracted Clause (j) of s.8(1) of the Act.

     In the Writ Petition against the order, Single Judge
of High Court held that ACR record cannot be disclosed,       F
except in cases involving overriding public interest and
remanded the matter to Central Information Commission
(CIC) for considering the issue whether in larger public
interest, the information sought could be disclosed and
if conclusion was in the affirmative, CIC to folfow           G
procedure u/s.11 (1 ). Writ appeal against the order of the
Single Judge was dismissed by Division Bench of High
Court. Hence the present appeal.

                            4t1                               H
    412      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A         Dismissing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1. Section 8 of Right to Information Act, 2005
  deals with exemption from disclosure of information.
  Under clause (j) of Section 8(1 ), there shall be no
  obligation to give any citizen, information which relates
8
  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
C authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies
  the disclosure of such information. [Para 12) [420-C-D]

       2. Section 11 of the Act deals with third party
  information and the circumstances when such
D information can be disclosed and the manner in which it
  is to be disclosed, if so decided by the Competent
  Authority. Under Section 11(1), if the information relates
  to or has been supplied by a third party and has been
  treated as confidential by the third party, and if the Central
E Public Information Officer or a State Public Information
  Officer intends to disclose any such information or record
  on a request made under the Act, in such case after
  written notice to the third party of the request, the Officer
  may disclose the information, if the third party agrees to
F such request or if the public interest in disclosure,
  outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to
  the interests of such third party. [Para 13) [421-A-C)

      3. The judgment of High Court on the question of
  appellant's seeking inspection of documents relating to
G the ACR of the Member, CESTAT, inter alia, relating to
  adverse entries in the ACR and the 'follow up action'
  taken therein on the question of ii:itegrity, does not call
  for any interference. [Para 17) [427-F-G]

H         Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information
             R.K. JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA                     413


Commissioner and Ors. (2013) 1 SCC 212: 2012 (8) SCR                 A
1097 - relied on.
    Arvind Kejriwal vs. Central Public Information Officer AIR
2010 Delhi 216; Centre for Earth Sciences Studies vs. Anson
Sebastian 2010 (2) KLT 233 - referred to.                            B

   State of U.P. vs. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 865: 1975 (3)
SCR 333 - cited.
                      Case Law Reference:
    1975 (3) SCR 333            cited                 Para 8
    2010 (2) KLT 233            referred to           Para 14
    AIR 2010 Delhi 216          referred to            Para 15
    2012 (8) SCR 1097           relied on              Para 16       D
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
3878 of 2013.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 20.04.2012 of the
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 22 of 2012.              E

     Prashant Bhushan for the Appellant.

     AS. Chandiok, ASG, Rajiv Nanda, Anirudh Sharma, B.
Krishna Prasad for the Respondents.
                                                                     F
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. Leave
granted.

    2. In this appeal, the appellant challenges the final judgment   G
and order dated 20th April, 2012 passed by the Delhi High
Court in LP.A. No. 22/2012. In the said order, the Division
Bench dismissed the appeal against the order of the learned
Single Judge dated 8th December, 2011, wherein the Single
Judge held that "the information sought by the appellant herein      H
    414        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A is the third party information wherein third party may plead a
  privacy defence and the proper question would be as to whether
  divulging of such an information is in the public interest or not."
  Thus, the matter has been remitted back to Chief Information
  Commissioner to consider the issue after following the
B procedure under Section 11 of the Right to Information Act.

          3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:

        The appellant filed an application to Central Public
  Information Officer (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPIO') under
C Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter
  referred to as the 'RTI Act') on 7th October, 2009 seeking the
  copies of all note sheets and correspondence pages of file
  relating to one Ms. Jyoti Balasundram, Member/CESTAT. The
  Under Secretary, who is the CPIO denied the information by
D impugned letter dated 15th October, 2009 on the ground that
  the information sought attracts Clause 8(1 )0) of the RTI Act,
  which reads as follows:-

                    "R-20011-68/2009 - ADIC - CESTAT
                            Government of India
E
                            Ministry of Finance
                          Department of Revenue
                          New Delhi, the 15.10.09

          To
F
                 Shri R.K. Jain
                 1512-B, Bhishm Pitamah Marg,
                 Wazir Nagar,
                 New Delhi - 110003
G

          Subject: Application under RTI Act.

          Sir,
H                Your RTI application No.RTl/09/2406 dated
           R.K. JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA                      415
      [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
    7.10.2009 seeks information from File No.27-3/2002 Ad-          A
    1-C. The file contains analysis of Annual Confidential
    Report of Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram only which attracts
    clause 8 (1) Q) of RTI Act. Therefore the information sought
    is denied.
                                                                    B
                                                Yours faithfully,

                                              (Victor James)
                        Under Secretary to the Govt. of India"

     4. On an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act, the           C
Director (Headquarters) and Appellate Authority by its order
dated 18th December, 2009 disallowed the same citing same
ground as cited by the CPIO; the relevant portion of which reads
as follows:

    "2.    I have gone through the RTI application dated
                                                                    D
    07.10.2009, wherein the Appe!!or.l had requested the
    following information;

           (A) Copies of all note sheets and correspondence
           pages of File No. 27/3/2002 -Ad. IC relating to Ms.      E
           Jyoti Balasundaram.

            (B) Inspection of all records, documents, files and
            note sheets of File No.27/3/2002 - Ad. IC.

            (C) Copies of records pointed out during I after        F
            inspection.

    3. I have gone through the reply dated 15.10.2009 of the
    Under Secretary, Ad. IC-CESTAT given to the Appellant
    stating that as the file contained analysis of the Annual       G
    Confidential Report of Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, furnishing
    of information is exempted under Section 9 (1) Q) of the
    R.T.I. Act.

    5. The provision of Section 8 (1) 0) of the RTI Act, 2005
    under which the !n_fQrrn~tiQ.11 b~s been denied bv the C~IQ __ H_
    416       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A         is reproduced hereunder:

                 "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
B
          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 ...... "

c         6. File No.27/3/2002-Ad.1 C deals with follow-up action on
          the ACR for the year 2000-2001 in respect of Ms. Jyoti
          Balasundaram, Member (Judicial), CEGAT" (now
          CESTAT). The matter discussed therein is personal and I
          am not inclined to acyept the view of the Appellant the
          since Ms. Jyoti 'sala~u~'d'a'rarh 'is hofcJ'ih~· the post. o~
          Member (Jt!dicia_I), CESTAT, large; p~::::;G int;; •.;:;~ i5
          involved, which therefort:, ~~1sts the exemption provided
          under Section 8 (1) (j). Moreover, Ms. Jy~·ti Balasundaram
          is still serving in the CESTAT and the ACR for the year
E         2000-2001 is still live and relevant insofar as her service
          is concerned. Therefore, it may not be proper to rush up
          to the conclusion that the matter is over and therefore, the
          information could have been given by the CPIO under
          Section 8(1 )(i). The file contains only 2 pages of the notes
F         and 5 pages of the correspondence, in which the ACR of
          the officer and the matter connected thereto have been
          discussed, which is exempt from disclosure under the
          aforesaid Section. The file contains no other information,
          which can be segregated and provided to the Appellant.

G         7. In view of the above, the appeal is disallowed."

       5. Thereafter, the appellant preferred a second appeal
  before the Central Information Commission under Section 19
  (3) of the RTI Act which was also rejected on 22nd April, 2010
H with the following observations:-
        R.K. JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA                         417
   (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
"4. Appellant's plea is that since the matter dealt in the          A
above-mentioned file related to the integrity of a public
servant, the disclosure of the requested information should
be authorized in public interest.

 5. It is not in doubt that the file referred to by the appellant   8
 related to the Annual Confidential Record of a third-party,
 Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram and was specific to substantiation
 by the Reporting Officer of the comments made in her
 ACRs about the third - party's integrity. Therefore,
·appellant's plea that the matter was about a public
 servant's integrity per-se is not valid. The ACR examines          C
 all aspects of the performance and the p,;r~onality <?_~_a
 public servant - integrity being one of them. An examination
 of the aspect of integrity as part of the CR cannot,
 therefore, be equated with the vigilance enquiry against a
 public servant. Appellant was in error in equating the two.        D

6. It has been the'consistent position of this Commission
that ACR grades can and should· be disclosed to the
person to whom the ACRs related and not to the third -
parties except under exceptional circumstances.                     E
Commission's decision in P.K. Sarvin Vs. Directorate
General of Works (CPWD); Appeal No. CIC/WB/N2007/
00422; Date of Decision; 19.02.2009 followed a Supreme
Court order in Dev Dutt Vs. UO/ (Civil Appeal No. 7631/
2002).                                                              F

7. An examination on file of the comments made by the
reporting and the reviewing officers in the ACRs of a public
servant, stands on the same footing as the ACRs itself. It
cannot, therefore, be authorized to be disclosed to a third-
party. In fact, even disclosure of such files to the public         G
servant to whom the ACRs may relate is itself open to
debate.

8. In view of the above, I am not in a position to authorize
disclosure of the information."                                     H
                               . ,·.




      418     SUPREME .COURT REPORTS                    (2013] 5 S.C.R.
                      ·- ' .
                       ~




' A       6. On being aggrieved by the above order, the appellant
    filed a writ petition bearing W.P(C) No. 6756 of 2010 before·
    the Delhi High Court which was rejected by the learned Single
    Judge vide judgment dated 8th December, 2011 relying on a
    judgment of Delhi High Court in Arvind Kejriwal vs. Central
  B Public Information Officer reported in AIR 2010 Delhi 216. The
     learned Single Judge while observing that except in cases
    involving overriding public interest, the ACR record of an officer
    cannot be disclosed to any person other than the officer himself/
     herself,' remanded the matter to the Central Information
  c Commission (CIC for short) for considering the issue whether,
     in the larger public interest, the. information sought by the
     appellant could be disclosed. It was observed thatif the CIC
     comes to a conclusion that larger public interest justifies the
/    disclosure of the information sought by the appellant, the CIC
  D would follow the procedure prescribed under Section 11 of Act.

           7. On an appeal to the above order, by the impugned
      judgment dated 20th April, 2012 the Division Bench of Delhi         • ·   t
      High Court in LPA No.22 of 2012 dismissed the same. The
      Division Bench held that the judgment of the Delhi High Court
  · E Coordinate Bench in Arvind Kejriwal case (supra) binds the
      Court on all fours to the said case also.
                                              .     .
           The Division Bench further held that the procedure under
    r Section 11 (1) is mandatory and has to be followed which
   F includes giving of notice to the concerned officer whose ACR
      was sought for. If that officer, pleads private defence such
      defence has to be examined while deciding the issue as to
      whether the private defence is to prevail or there is an element
      of overriding public interest which would outweigh the private
   G defence. ·'

           8. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the appellant
     submitted that the appellant wanted information in a separate
     file other than the ACR file, namely, the "follow up action" which
     was taken by the Ministry of Finance about the remarks against .
 · H 'integrity' in the ACR of the Member. Accordinr, to him, it was            ·1
           R.K. JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA                         419
      [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
different from asking the copy of the ACR itself. However, we          A
find that the learned Single Judge at the time of hearing ordered
for production of the original records and after perusing the
same came to the conclusion that the information sought for
was not different or distinguished from ACR. The learned Single
Judge held that the said file contains correspondence in relation      B
to the remarks recorded by the President of the CESTAT in
 relation to Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, a Member and also
contains the reasons why the said remarks have eventually
 been dropped. Therefore, recordings made in the said file
constitute an integral part of the ACR record of the officer in        c
question.

     Mr. Bhushan then submitted that ACR of a public servant
has a relationship with public activity as he discharges public
duties and, therefore, the matter is of a public interest; asking
for such information does not amount to any unwarranted                D
invasion in the privacy of public servant. Referring to this Court's
decision in the case of State of U.P. vs. Raj Narain, AIR 1975
SC 865, it was submitted that when such information can be
supplied to the Parliament, the information relating to the ACR
cannot be treated as personal document or private document.            E

     9. It was also contended that with respect to this issue
there are conflicting decisions of Division Bench of Kerala High
Court in Centre for Earth Sciences Studies vs. Anson
Sebastian reported in 2010 ( 2) KLT 233 and the Division               F
Bench of Delhi High Court in Arvind Kejriwal vs. Central Public
Information Officer reported in AIR 2010 Delhi 216.

      10. Shri A. S. Chandiok, learned Additional Solicitor
General appearing for the respondents, in reply contended that
the information relating to ACR relates to the personal                G
information and may cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of
the individual, therefore, according to him the information sought
for by the appellant relating to analysis of ACR of Ms. Jyoti
Balasundaram is exempted under Section 8(1)0) of the RTI Act
and hence the same cannot be furnished to the appellant. He            H
    420       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A   relied upon decision of this Court in Girish Ramchandra
    Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner and
    Others, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 212.

         11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties,
    perused the records, the judgements as referred above and the
8
    relevant provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

        12. Section 8 deals with exemption from disclosure of
   information. Under clause 0) of Section 8(1), there shall be no
   obligation to give any citizen information which relates to
.C 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 is satisfied that the
 D larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
   The said clause reads as follows:-

          "Section 8 - Exemption from disclosure of
          information.- ( 1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
          this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,--
E
                xxx                      xxx               xxx
                xxx                      xxx               xxx
          0) 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
G         that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such
          information:

          Provided that the information which cannot be denied to
          the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied
H         to any person."
            R.K. JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA                       421
       [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
      13. On the other hand Section 11 deals with third party         A
information and the circumstances when such information can
be disclosed and the manner in which it is to be disclosed, if
so decided by the Competent Authority. Under Section 11 (1 ),
if the information relates to or has been supplied by a third party
and has been treated as confidential by the third party, and if       B
the Central Public Information Officer or a State Public
Information Officer intends to disclose any such information or
record on a request made under the Act, in such case after
written notice to the third party of the request, the Officer may
disclose the information, if the third party agrees to such request   c
or if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance
any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.
Section 11 (1) is quoted hereunder:

     "Section 11 - Third party information.- (1) Where a
     Central Public Information Officer or a State Public             D
     Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose
     any information or record, or part thereof on a request
     made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied
     by a third party and has been treated as confidential by
     that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or      E
     State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall,
     within five days from the receipt of the request, give a
     written notice to such third party of the request and of the
     fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State
     Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to       F
     disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and
     invite the third party to make a submission in writing or
     orally, regarding whether the information should be
     disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be
     kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of         G
     information:

     Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial
     secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the
     public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any        H .
    422      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A         possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party."

        14. In Centre for Earth Sciences Studies vs. Anson
  Sebastian reported in 2010(2) KLT 233 the Kerala High Court
  considered the question whether the information sought relates
  to personal information of other employees, the disclosure of
8
  which is prohibited under Section 8(1) U) of the RTI Act. In that
  case the Kerala High Court noticed that the information sought
  for by the first respondent pertains to copies of documents
  furnished in a domestic enquiry against one of the employees
C of the appellant-organization. Particulars of confidential reports
  maintained in respect of co-employees in the above said case
  (all of whom were Scientists) were sought from the appellant-
  organisation. The Division Bench of Kerala High Court after
  noticing the relevant provisions of RTI Act held that documents
  produced in a domestic enquiry cannot be treated as
D documents relating to personal information of a person,
  disclosure of which will cause unwarranted invasion of privacy
  of such person. The Court further held that the confidential
  reports of the employees maintained by the employer cannot
  be treated ·as records pertaining to personal information of an
E employee and publication of the same is not prohibited under
  Section 8(1) 0) of the RTI Act.

        15. The Delhi High Court in Arvind Kejriwal vs. Central
    Public Information Officer reported in AIR 2010 Delhi 216
F  considered Section 11 of the RTI Act. The Court held that once
   the information seeker is provided information relating to a third
   party, it is no longer in the private domain. Such information
   seeker can then disclose in turn such information to the whole
   World. Therefore, for providing the information the procedure
G outlined under Section 11 (1) cannot be dispensed with. The
   following was the observation made by the Delhi High Court in
 · Arvind Kejriwal (supra):

          "22. Turning to the case on hand, the documents of
          which copies are sought are in the personal files of
H         officers working at the levels of Deputy Secretary, Joint
 ~     R.K. JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA                     423
  [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
Secretary, Director, Additional Secretary and Secretary        A
in the Government of India. Appointments to these posts
are made on a comparative assessment of the relative
merits of various officers by a departmental promotion
committee or a selection committee, as the case may be.
 The evaluation of the past performance of these officers      B
is contained in the ACRs. On the basis of the
comparative assessment a grading is given,. Such
information cannot but be viewed as personal \to such
officers. Vis-a-vis a person who is not an employee of the
 Government of India and is seeking such information as        c
 a member of the public, such information has to be
 viewed as Constituting 'third party information'. This can
 be contrasted with a situation where a government
 employee is seeking information concerning his own
 grading, ACR etc. That obviously does not involve 'third
                                                               0
party' information.

23. What is, however, important to note is that it is not as
if such information is totally exempt from disclosure.
When an application is made seeking such information,
notice would be issued by the CIC or the CP/Os or the          E
State Commission, ·as the case may be, to such 'third
party' and after hearing such third party, a decision will
be taken by the CIC or the CP/Os or the State
Commission whether or not to order disclosure of such
information. The third party may plead a 'privacy'             F
defence. But such defence may, for good reasons, be
overruled. In other words, after following the procedure
outlined in Section 11 (1) of the RT/ Act, the CIC may still
decide that information should be disclosed in public
interest overruling any objection that the third party may     G
have to the disclosure of such information.

  24. Given the above procedure, it is not possible to agree
  with the submission of Mr. Bhushan that the word 'or'
. occurring in Section 11 (1) in the phrase information
                                                               H
    424       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A         "which relates to or has been supplied by a thin:j party"
          should be read as 'and'. Clearly, information relating to
          a third party would also be third party information within
          the meaning of Section 11 (1) of the RT/ Act. Information
          provided by such third party would of course also be third
B         party information. These two distinct categories of third
          party information have been recognized under Section
          11 (1) of the Act. It is not possible for this Court in the
          circumstances to read the word 'or' as 'and'. The mere
          fact that inspection of such files was permitted, without
c         following the mandatory procedure under Section 11(1)
          does not mean that, at the stage of furnishing copies of
          the documents inspected, the said procedure can be
          waived. In fact, the procedure should have been followed
          even prior to permitting inspection, but now the clock
          cannot be put back as far as that is concerned.
D
          25. The logic of the Section 11 (1) RT/ Act is plain. Once
          the information seeker is provided information relating to
          a third party, it is no longer in the private domain. Such
          information seeker can then disclose in turn such
E         information to the whole world. There may be an officer
          who may not want the whole world to know why he or she
          was overlooked for promotion. The defence of privacy in
          such a case cannot be lightly brushed aside saying that
          since the officer is a public servant he or she cannot
F         possibly fight shy of such disclosure. There may be yet
          another situation where the officer may have no qualms
          about such disclosure. And there may be a third category
          where the credentials of the officer appointed may be
          thought ofras being in public interest to be disclosed. The
G         importance of the post held may also be a factor that
          might weigh with the information officer. This exercise of
          weighing the competing interests can possibly be
          undertaken only after hearing all interested parties.
          Therefore the procedure under Section 11 (1) RT/ Act.
H
            R.K. JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA                        425
       [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

    26. This Court, therefore, holds that the CIC was not              A
    justified in overruling the objection of the UOI on the
    basis of Section 11 (1) of the RT/ Act and directing the
     UO/ and the DoPT to provide copies of the documents
    as sought by Mr. Kejriwal. Whatever may have been the
    past practice when disclosure was ordered of information           B
    contained in the files relating to appointment of officers
    and which information included their ACRs, grading,
     vigilance clearance etc., the mandatory procedure
     outlined under Section 11 (1) cannot be dispensed with.
     The short question framed by this Court in the first              c
    paragraph of this judgment was answered in the
     affirmative by the CIC. This Court reverses the CIC's
     impugned order and answers it in the negative.

     27. The impugned order dated 12th June 2008 of the CIC
     and the consequential order dated 19th November 2008              D
     of the CIC are hereby set aside. The appeals by Mr.
     Kejriwal will be restored to the file of the CIC for
     compliance with the procedure outlined under Section
     11 (1) RT/ Act limited to the information Mr. Kejriwal now
     ~~·                                                               E
      16. Recently similar issue fell for consideration before this
Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central
Information Commissioner and_ Others reported in (2013) 1
SCC 212. That was a case in which Central Information                  F
Commissioner denied the information pertaining to the service
career of the third party to the said case and also denied the
details relating to assets, liabilities, moveable and immovable
properties of the third party on the ground that the information
sought for was qualified to be personal information as defined         G
in clause Q) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. In that case this Court
also considered the question whether the orders of censure/
punishment, etc. are personal information and the performance
of an employee/officer in an organization, commonly known as
Annual Confidential Report can be disclosed or not. This Court         H
    426      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A   after hearing the parties and noticing the provisions of RTI Act
    held:

          "11. 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
B
          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 been
          accepted by the third respondent, his family members
c         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: whether the
          abovementioned information sought for qualifies to be
D         "personal information" as defined in clause (j) of Section
          8(1) of the RT/ Act.

          12. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts
          below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e.
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 RT/ Act. The performance
          of an employee/officer in an organisation is primarily a
F         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
G
          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
H
              R.K. JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA                    427
         [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
    but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter        A
    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
                                                                     8
    RT/ 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.
                                                                     c
    14. The petitioner in the instant case has not made a
    bona fide public interest in seeking information, the
    disclosure of such information would cause unwa"anted
    invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1)(j)
    of the RT/ Act.                                                  D
    15. 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.
                                                                     E
    Hence, the same is dismissed."

      17. In view of the discussion made above and the decision
in this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra), as the
appellant sought for inspection of documents relating to the
ACR of the Member, CESTAT, inter alia, relating to adverse           F
entries in the ACR and the 'follow up action' taken therein on
the question of integrity, we find no reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench whereby the
order passed by the learned Single Judge was affirmed. In
absence of any merit, the appeal is dismissed but there shall        G
be no order as to costs.

K.K.T.                                       Appeal dismissed.


                                                                     H