R.K.JAIN vs. UNION OF INDIA

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.                     OF 2013 (arising out of SLP(C)No.22609 of 2012) R.K. JAIN        …. APPELLANT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. `      ….RESPONDENTS J UD G M E N T SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. Leave granted. 2. In this appeal, the appellant challenges the final  th judgment and order dated 20  April, 2012 passed by the  Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 22/2012.   In the said  JUDGMENT order, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal against  th  the   order   of   the   learned   Single   Judge   dated   8 December, 2011, wherein the Single Judge held that “the  information sought by the appellant herein 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  1 Page 1 consider the issue after following the 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 Section 6 of the Right to Information  Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RTI Act’) on  th 7  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   impugned  th letter dated 15   October, 2009 on the ground that the  information sought  attracts Clause 8(1)(j) of the RTI  JUDGMENT Act,  which reads as follows:­ “R­20011­68/2009 – ADIC – CESTAT Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue New Delhi, the 15.10.09 To  Shri R.K. Jain 1512­B, Bhishm Pitamah Marg, Wazir Nagar, New Delhi – 110003 Subject: Application under RTI Act. Sir, Your RTI application No.RTI/09/2406 dated  7.10.2009   seeks   information   from   File   No.27­ 2 Page 2 3/2002 Ad­1­C.   The file contains analysis of  Annual   Confidential   Report   of   Smt.   Jyoti  Balasundaram only which attracts clause 8 (1)  (j)   of   RTI   Act.   Therefore   the   information  sought is denied. Yours faithfully, (Victor James) Under Secretary to the Govt. of India” 4. On an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act, the  Director (Headquarters) and Appellate Authority by its  th order   dated   18   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   07.10.2009,   wherein   the   Appellant   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. Jyoti  Balasundaram. (B)Inspection   of   all   records,   documents,  JUDGMENT files   and   note   sheets   of   File  No.27/3/2002 – Ad. IC.  (C)Copies of records pointed out during /  after 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  Confidential Report of Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram,  furnishing   of   information   is   exempted   under  Section 9 (1) (j) of the R.T.I. Act.  5. The provision of Section 8 (1) (j) of the  RTI Act, 2005 under which the information has  been   denied   by   the   CPIO   is   reproduced  hereunder: 3 Page 3 “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……” 6. File No.27/3/2002­ Ad.1C deals with follow­ up action on the ACR for the year 2000­2001  in   respect   of   Ms.   Jyoti   Balasundaram,  Member   (Judicial),   CEGAT”   (now   CESTAT).  The   matter   discussed   therein   is   personal  and I am not inclined to accept the view of  the   Appellant   the   since   Ms.   Jyoti  Balasundaram is holding the post of Member  (Judicial), CESTAT, larger public interest  is   involved,   which   therefore,   ousts   the  exemption provided under Section 8 (1) (j).  Moreover,   Ms.   Jyoti   Balasundaram   is   still  serving in the CESTAT and the ACR for the  year 2000­2001 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   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. JUDGMENT 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  nd on 22  April, 2010 with the following observations:­ 4 Page 4 “4. Appellant’s   plea   is   that   since   the  matter   dealt   in   the   above­mentioned   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   related  to the Annual Confidential Record of a  third­party,   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  per­se is not valid.  The ACR examines  all aspects of the performance and the  personality   of   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.  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.  Commission’s   decision   in   P.K.   Sarvin  Vs.   Directorate   General   of   Works  (CPWD);   Appeal   No.  CIC/WB/A/2007/00422; Date of Decision;  19.02.2009   followed   a   Supreme   Court  order   in   Dev   Dutt   Vs.   UOI   (Civil  Appeal No. 7631/2002). JUDGMENT 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 third­party.   In fact,  even disclosure of such files to the  5 Page 5 public   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.” 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  th  by   the   learned   Single   Judge   vide   judgment   dated   8 December,   2011   relying   on   a   judgment   of   Delhi   High  Court   in     Arvind   Kejriwal   vs.   Central   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 Commission (CIC for  JUDGMENT short) for considering the issue whether, in the larger  public   interest,   the   information   sought   by   the  appellant could be disclosed.  It was observed that if  the   CIC   comes   to   a   conclusion   that   larger   public  interest   justifies   the   disclosure   of   the   information  sought   by   the   appellant,   the   CIC   would   follow   the  procedure prescribed under Section 11 of Act.   7. On an appeal to the above order,  by the impugned  th judgment dated 20   April, 2012 the Division Bench of  6 Page 6 Delhi  High  Court   in LPA  No.22  of  2012  dismissed  the  same. The Division Bench held that the judgment of the  Delhi High Court 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   Section   11   (1)   is   mandatory   and   has   to   be  followed   which   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 defence.  8. Mr.   Prashant   Bhushan,   learned   counsel   for   the  JUDGMENT 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  ‘integrity’  in  the  ACR  of  the  Member.    According   to  him, it was different from asking the copy of the ACR  itself.  However, we 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  7 Page 7 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 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  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 invasion in the privacy  JUDGMENT 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.   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  8 Page 8 Studies vs. Anson Sebastian   reported in  2010 (   2) KLT  233   and   the   Division   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 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)(j) of the  RTI Act and hence the same cannot be furnished to the  appellant.   He   relied   upon   decision   of   this   Court   in  Girish   Ramchandra   Deshpande   vs.   Central   Information  JUDGMENT 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 relevant provisions of the Right to Information  Act, 2005.    12. Section 8 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 to personal information the disclosure of  9 Page 9 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 larger public interest justifies the disclosure of  such information. The said clause reads as follows:­ “ Section   8   ­   Exemption   from   disclosure   of  .­             Notwithstanding   anything  information (1) contained   in   this   Act,   there   shall   be   no  obligation to give any citizen,­­ xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (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: JUDGMENT Provided   that   the   information   which   cannot   be  denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature  shall not be denied to any person.” 13. On   the   other   hand   Section   11   deals   with     third  party   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  10 Page 10 has been treated as confidential by the third party,  and   if   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  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   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   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 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 information: JUDGMENT 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 possible  11 Page 11 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   which   is   prohibited  under Section 8(1) (j) 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 of the appellant­organization.  Particulars   of   confidential   reports   maintained   in  respect of co­employees in the above said case (all  of   whom   were   Scientists)   were   sought   from   the  JUDGMENT appellant­organisation.    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 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  12 Page 12 information   of   an   employee   and   publication   of   the  same is not prohibited under Section 8(1) (j) of the  RTI Act.   15. The   Delhi   High   Court   in   Arvind   Kejriwal   vs.  Central  Public  Information  Officer   reported   in   AIR  2010 Delhi 216  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   outlined   under   Section  11(1) cannot be dispensed with.   The following was  the   observation   made   by   the   Delhi   High   Court   in  Arvind Kejriwal (supra): JUDGMENT  “22. Turning to the case on hand, the documents  of which copies are sought are in the personal  files   of   officers   working   at   the   levels   of  Deputy   Secretary,   Joint   Secretary,   Director,  Additional   Secretary   and   Secretary   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   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. Vis­à­vis a person who is not an  employee   of   the   Government   of   India   and   is  seeking   such   information   as   a   member   of   the  public,   such   information   has   to   be   viewed   as  13 Page 13

14 Page 14

15 Page 15 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   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 in clause (j) 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  JUDGMENT Annual   Confidential   Report   can   be   disclosed   or   not.  This Court after hearing the parties and noticing the  provisions of RTI Act held: “11.  The petitioner herein sought for copies of  all   memos,   show­cause   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   been  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  16 Page 16 that has come up for consideration is: whether  the   abovementioned   information   sought   for  qualifies   to   be   “personal   information”   as  defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI  Act. 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,   show­cause   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 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. JUDGMENT 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 unwarranted invasion of privacy of  the individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI  Act. 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. Hence, the same is dismissed.” 17 Page 17 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  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 be no order as  to costs. ………..………………………………………..J.        (G.S. SINGHVI) JUDGMENT ………………………………………………….J.                   (SUDHANSU JYOTI  MUKHOPADHAYA) NEW DELHI, APRIL 16, 2013. 18 Page 18