CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Transcription

1 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION (Room No.315, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi ) Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar) Information Commissioner CIC/SA/A/2015/ Lalit Kapur v. PIO, Deputy Director of Education (North East B) Important Dates and time taken: RTI: Reply: FAO: SA: Hearing: Decision: Result: Show cause and compensation. Parties Present: 1. Appellant is not present. Mr. H. S. Choudhary, ADE, Mr. Anil Kumar, Supdtd/APIO and Mr. K. K. A. Sorte, DDE/PIO represents Public authority. FACTS: 2. Appellant had sought for information regarding a student, Nishit Anand, of R.D Public School. He wanted copy of the transfer certificate of class XI on the basis of which the student got admission in class XII, details of the school no./roll no./school registration no. and date of admission of the school etc. His request includes: a. Copy of the transfer certificate/slc of Class XI on the basis of which the above student got admission in class XII of R.D Public School.

2 b. School roll no. and school registration number, date of admission in the school. While taking admission in class 12. c. CBSE registration number of the student for class 11 and 12 th. d. Copy of the pages at which the names of the student is registered in school record with the details. e. Copy of the details of the approvals sought from CBSE with respect to the above student including: i. Approval from CBSE for allowing admission in class 12th directly to the student. ii. Permission to change subject in class 12 th as he studied different subject in class 11 iii. Approval to study in class 12 th since the student had done in class 11 in different student. f. Reason given by the student for parents for leaving the school from where he passed in 12 th. g. Date of registration in class 12 th of school and his approval for registration in CBSE sought from CBSE. h. Copy of all the correspondence made by the school to CBSE with respect to this student. 3. Having received no information, appellant filed First Appeal, in which authority ordered on to give revised reply within 10 days. Not satisfied with reply, appellant approached Commission. Decision: 4. PIO claimed most of the information was furnished. He referred to a letter dated of R.D Public Sr. Sec. School to DDE, wherein the principal stated that their school would not come under RTI Act and that applicant was involved in a family dispute with the school boy, who is his close relative. Principal apprehended disclosure would cause damage to the boy. Yet, surprisingly the Principal supplied

3 several documents to the DDE on including admission form filled by the parents of child, page of school admission register, which contained personal details like contact numbers, residential address, monthly income of parents, medical history of the boy, etc. The page of admission register also contained personal information of students, which was not sought for by the appellant. School should not have furnished the copies of CBSE certificate of the child. Another letter from CBSE given to school granting direct admission to ten students including Nishit Anand was also furnished to appellant. This contains personal details of ten students and Nishit Anand. The appellant was still not satisfied and filed second appeal demanding further details about the boy. The CPIO of DDE has given all this information to appellant without applying the mind and not minding the security issues that might arise. 5. After going through the second appeal and hearing submissions of the appellant, it was revealed that CPIO did not follow the mandatory process in Section 11 of the RTI Act to seek opinion of the parents of the child, the third party. 6. The information requested is certainly personal in nature besides being third party information of a minor student, and its disclosure may not enhance the welfare of the child. It is interrogative in nature and he is trying to use RTI to embarrass the child or his family, not with a good motive, but for some unspecified purpose, which is certainly not public purpose. The information on points d, e, f and h, cannot be termed as general information. It cannot be disclosed as per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Public authority, the DDE should have refused this information. 7. Highlighting the importance of Section 11 of the RTI Act, Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of R.K Jain vs. Union of India [SLP (C) No of 2012] dated had observed as follows :

4 13.. 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 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 The third party may plead a 'privacy' defence. But such defence may, for good reasons, be overruled. In other words, after following the procedure outlined in Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, the CIC may still decide that information should be disclosed in public interest overruling any objection that the third party may have to the disclosure of such information. 25. The logic of the Section 11(1) RTI 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 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 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 of as being in public interest to be disclosed. The 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. 8. Irrespective of the opinion expressed by the third party, the CPIO has to decide based on his discretion in public interest to fulfill the objectives of RTI Act. The CPIO can even refuse to disclose even if the third party has agreed to disclose or provide information even if third party objected to. When the third party is the child, it is the responsibility of

5 the CPIO to examine the welfare of the child, whose information is sought. There are several incidents reported that rivals of the parents or quarreling spouses take the child from the school. Revealing the details of the child might lead to kidnap or murder etc. During the stay of child in school, the principal and teachers have a duty of guardian and any negligence on their part might harm the student. In such case anybody who is interested in child s welfare can demand damages from the authority who disclosed the private information in violation of right to privacy and in breach of RTI Act. 9. The CPIO has committed breach of S 11 of RTI Act and ignored the order of Supreme Court of India in the above mentioned case. The CPIO should have considered the question of welfare of the child from the relatives who were in family dispute with the parents of the child. 10. The Principal has not applied his mind, though he knew the problem from the relatives who were in dispute with parents of the child and communicated personal information to CPIO of DDE, who in turn furnished the entire information to appellant without applying the mind. The Commission holds that information exempted under section 8(1)(j) was disclosed and because of which the right to privacy of the child and his parents was violated by the Principal and CPIO. The claim of the public authority that the guardian could not be contacted is not convincing, as the correct course of action would have been to follow to the RTI Rules or take legal opinion. The CPIO in not doing so has put the student s safety in jeopardy. 11. Commission, therefore, directs the then CPIO and the Principal of the School to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed on both of them and disciplinary action be initiated against both of them for not complying with the provision of Section 11 of RTI Act and causing breach of the privacy of the child and his parents. The Commission directs the Principal and CPIO to show cause why compensation of

6 Rs 1000 each be not paid to the child for the loss they caused by breaching his privacy. The explanations should reach the Commission within 21 days of receipt of this order. The Commission directs the CPIO and Principal not to disclose the personal information of the students to any person, much less to his so called relatives without following the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act. 12. The Commission records its admonition against the appellant for misuse of RTI against the school child, and warns him against such misuse in future. His second appeal is extension of abuse and hence rejected. Though the RTI Act has not provided to impose penalty against the RTI applicant, the Commission records its contempt against him and imposes a penalty of Re. 10/ recommended to be paid to the Principal of the School. Authenticated true copy (M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner (U. C. Joshi) Deputy Secretary Addresses of the parties: 1. The CPIO under RTI, Deputy Director of Education (North East B), Directorate of Education, FU Block, Pitampura, New Delhi.

7 2. Shri Lalit Kapur, 12/19, W.E. A, Karol Bagh, New Delhi