CENTRALINFORMATIONCOMMISSION

(RoomNo.315,BWing,AugustKrantiBhawan,BhikajiCamaPlace,NewDelhi110066)

FileNo.CIC/AD/A/2012/003544SA

(ShashiPrabhaVs.BhagwanMahavirHospital)

Appellant

ShashiPrabha

Respondent

BhagwanMahavirHospital

Dateofhearing

28.1.2014

Dateofdecision

28.1.2014

InformationCommissioner :

Prof.M.SridharAcharyulu
(MadabhushiSridhar)

ReferredSections

Sections3,8(1)(j),11(1)and

19(3)oftheRTIAct
Result

Appealallowed/disposedof

FACTS

Heard today dated 28.1.14. Appellant present. Public Authority is

representedbyDr.SumanSingalandDr.SumanKumari
2.

Mr. Arun Kumar, (hereinafter called the RTI Applicant) filed an RTI

application dt.11.5.12 with the PIO of the Respondent Public Authority seeking
certain information relating to an employee Mrs S. (hereinafter referred to as
Appellant).

i)

Occupationofherfathergivenbyherinfamilydetails

which wassupposedtobesubmittedatthetimeof
recruitment.
ii)

ProvidemethedetailsoffamilymembersofAppellantat

thetimeofrecruitmentandaftertherecruitmentduring
herservicealongwiththedependentandindependent
familymembersnamefortheaboveperiods.Providethe
documentssubmittedbyheralongwiththeinformation.
iii)

HastheAppellantinformedthedepartmentabouther

marriage.Providetheintimationdocumentsthereof.
iv)

Detailsofmoveableandimmoveablepropertyofthe

Appellantasperconductrules.
v)

ProvidemethedetailsofDGHScardalongwithphoto

copyandhowmanypersonsaredependentinAppellants
card.Hasanyoneofthemtakenbenefitsofhealth

DGHS

facility from your

department.
vi)

HastheAppellantgivenintimationtoconcerned

departmentregardingthecivilcaseatTisHazariCourt
pendingagainstherbeforethehonourablecourt.
vii)

ProvideannualpropertyreturndocumentofAppellant.

ThePIOinformedtheAppellantvideletterdt.2.6.12thatshe(PIO)intends
todiscloseinformationagainstpoints1,2,3,5and6totheRTIApplicant. The
Appellantfiledanappealdt.28.6.12withtheAppellateAuthorityrequestingnotto
disclose information to the RTI Applicant. The Appellate Authority vide order
dt.20.7.12upheldthedecisionofthePIO. Therelevantportionoftheorderis
givenbelow:

The appellant argued that, she has objection for disclosure of personal
informationasRTIapplicantisherbrotherinlawandthisisgrievanceasthereisa
familyfeudbetweenRTIapplicantandherandtheinformationsoughtmaybe
misused.
AftergoingthroughthesubmissionsmadebyappellantandPIO,Iamof
theconsideredview,thattheinformationforPointsNo.1,2,3,5and6mustbe
disclosedtotheRTIApplicantandtheordersofPIOareupheld.

Beingaggrievedwiththereply,theAppellantapproachedtheCommission
videhersecondappealdt.13.10.12beforeCIC. Thedetailsofdomesticdisputes
betweentheRTIapplicantandhiswife(sisteroftheAppellant)isgivenbelow:
TheAppellantseldersistersoonafterhermarriagewiththeRTIapplicant
foundthatshehadbecomepreyinthehandsofgreedyanddowrylovingpeoples
and when the Appellants sister came to know that her husband is already a
divorcee,shehastriedtopurchaseaflatoutofherownfundsassheisworkingas
ateacherinSalwanBoysseniorsecondaryschool. TheAppellantssisterwas
thrownoutoftheflatbyherhusbandwhenshewaseightmonthspregnant.For
thelastthreeyears,theRTIapplicantnevercametoseeherdaughterandnever
paidasinglepennyforhermaintenanceandupbringing.TheRTIapplicantafter
throwinghiswifeoutoftheflatfiledafalseandfrivolouscaseagainsthiswifein
ordertograbtheselfacquiredpropertyofAppellantssisterandhehasalsomade
hiswifesbrotherandsistersdefendantinthesaidcase.
TheAppellantssisterfiledacriminalcomplaintagainstherhusbandand
inlawsforhercontinuoustortureandharassment.Inturn,thehusbandalsofiled

criminal case against the family members of the Appellant including the RTI
ApplicantswifeinUttarPradesh.
The RTI Applicant in order to escape from the liability of paying
maintenancetohiswifeandyoungdaughterandalsotosavehimselfandhis
familymembersfromthecriminalcasestartedfilingRTIapplicationsoneafterthe
other,complaintsinthedepartmentofbrotherandsisteroftheAppellant.TheRTI
applicationunderthepresentappealisalsooneoftheulteriorstepinorderto
pressurizeAppellantandherfamilymemberssothattheywouldwithdrawcriminal
casefiledagainsthimandhisfamilymembersandalsorelinquishtheirclaimon
theabovesaidflat.

3.

TheAppellantinherappealhadstatedthatFAAignoredtheprovisionsof

section8(1)(j)and11(1)oftheRTIActwhileallowingdisclosureofinformationto
theRTIApplicant.Shefeelsitispersonalinformationandasathirdparty,sheis
entitled to protect her right to privacy. She also claims that disclosure of
informationsoughtisnotrelatedtoanypublicactivity,willnotserveanypublic
interestandincontrary,suchdisclosurewouldharmherselfpersonallybesides
amountingtounwarrantedinvasionofherprivacybesidesfacilitatingRTIapplicant
toharassherselfandothersistersandbrothersoftheRTIApplicantswifewith
whomRTIApplicanthasseveralcivilandcriminalcases(Appellantisthesisterin
lawoftheRTIApplicant)aboutdomesticrelations.TheAppellantalsoclaimsthat
FAAorderiscontrarytotheletterandspiritofnotonlyprovisionsofSection8(1)(j)
andSection11butofthewholeRTIAct.Shestronglycontendedthatnopersonal
informationabouthershouldbedisclosed. SheaddedthatRTIApplicanthas
been maliciously filing several RTI applications against brothers and sisters
(includingherself)oftheRTIApplicantswife. RTIApplicantisfrequentlyasking

abouttheminutedetailsofservicerelatedinformationofhiswifesbrothersand
sisters(includingAppellant)andtryingtobuildupsomeortheotherfalsecaseout
ofitonlytoharassallofthemtowreckvengeanceagainsthiswifewhoisfighting
forherrights.Hence,shemadeastrongappealtotheCommissionnottodisclose
anyofherpersonalinformation.
ThemainissuesforconsiderationbeforetheCommissionare:

a) Whethertheappellanthereisthirdparty?
b) Whether following information sought about her constitute private
informationorinformationwiththepublicauthoritythatcanbedisclosed:

(i) Whatisherdesignation,statusetcinrespondentoffice?
(ii)

What did she stated about her marital status at the time of
recruitment?

(iii)

Whatdidshestatedaboutcivilcasependingagainsther(filedby
RTIapplicant)?

(iv)

Whatisthestatementofhermovableandimmovableproperties
submittedatthetimeofrecruitment?

(v) Whatdidshetellasherfathersoccupation?
(vi)

Whatwasthelistofdependentsonher,submittedbyher?

(vii)

WhatisherDGHScardandwhoarealleligibleinherfamilytotake
benefitunderthat,andotherdetails.

These questions can be broadly be reduced into two issues, whether

informationsoughtispersonalinformationoftheappellantandwhethersheisthe
thirdparty.Section8(1)(j)oftheRTIActisgivenbelow:

informationwhichrelatestopersonalinformationthedisclosureofwhich
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
InformationOfficerortheStatePublicInformationOfficerortheappellateauthority,
as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the
disclosureofsuchinformation
Isitpersonalinformation?
Generallythedesignationandstatusandtosomeextentsalaryinformation
ofemployeeofpublicauthorityalsocouldbedisclosedunderRTIAct,buttheother
informationsoughtinthiscasesuchasmaritalstatus,civilcasespending,assets
& liabilities, movable and immovable properties, fathers occupation, list of
dependentsandlistofpeopleeligibleinherfamilyforDGHSareallpersonalin
character. They might be required for the employer to employ that particular
person,butsuchparticularsdonothaveanyrelationtonatureofherworkinsuch
publicauthority.Moreover,theparticularssought,asmentionedabove,haveno
connectionwithanyotherpublicactivityifnotthatofpublicauthority.Infact,the
RTIappellantistryingtoknowentireserviceparticularsandherfamilydetails
throughthepublicauthority,whicharerightlyexemptedfromthedisclosurebythe
RTIAct.
TheSupremeCourtinGirishRamachandracasein2012(SpecialLeave
Petition(Civil)No.27734of2012) upholdingtheCICorder,hasrightlyreiterated
thattheperformanceofanemployee/officerinanorganizationisprimarilyamatter
betweentheemployeeandtheemployerandnormallythoseaspectsaregoverned
by the service rules which fall under the expression personal information, the
disclosureofwhichhasnorelationshiptoanypublicactivityorpublicinterest.On
the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of
privacyofthatindividual.

In Appeal no. CIC/AT/A/2006/00311 Janardan Dubey v Office of Joint

Secretary (Trg)& CAO, MinistryofDefence, dated 3 November 2006, MrA N
Tiwari,InformationCommissionerheldthatthedetailsoffamilymembersunder
CGHS Card, the marriage information, names of nominees, details about any
disciplinary action pending against were personal in nature, and disclosure of
whichwouldhaveledtounwarrantedharassmentandintimidationoftheemployee
oftheotherparties.Thiswasexactlytheapprehensionofappellantinthiscase
aboutthehusbandofhersister,againstwhomheisleadingseverallitigations.
Thepropertydetails,likeassetsandliabilities,ormovableorimmovable
propertiesofpublicservantaregenerallydisclosableasitwouldhavesomethingto
dowithtransparencyandaccountabilityofpublicservants.Inthiscasethedetails
ofsuchinformationfromalowerlevelemployeesuchasstaffnursecannotbe
consideredtohaveanyeffectonaccountabilityortransparency.Astheactivities
andnatureofherjobaretotallydifferentandunconnectedtothepurposeforwhich
suchinformationissoughttobedisclosed.
The Commission on perusing the information sought comes to the
conclusion that information relating to the occupation of Appellants father,
Appellantsfamilydetails(includingherdependentfamilymembers)atthetimeof
recruitmentandafterrecruitmentneednotbegivenastheysquarelyfallunderthe
categoryofpersonalinformation.
PIOoftheRespondentPublicAuthorityshouldhaveexaminedcarefully
everypointofinformationthatwasbeingsoughtbytheRTIApplicant,who,asper
theirsubmissions,hashistoryoffilingseveralRTIapplicationsallegedlytomeet

his own selfish interests against his wife and should have denied all that
informationwhichispersonal,prohibited/exemptedbytheRTIAct.
TheDelhiHighCourtinArvindKejriwalVsCPIO(AIR2010Del216)has
madeitveryclearthatCPIOortheAppellateAuthorityhastohearthirdparty
beforetakingadecisionandthirdpartymaypleadaprivacydefencewhichfor
goodreasonscouldbeoverruled.Thisisfacilitatedbytheprocedureoutlinedu/s
11(1)ofRTIActwhichalsoincludethatCICmaystilldecidethatinformationshould
bedisclosedinpublicinterestoverrulingtheobjectionsthethirdpartymayhavein
disclosure of such information. In this case, there is enough justification for
consideringtheinformationsoughtbytheRTIApplicantaspersonalinformationof
theAppellantandAppellanthaseveryrighttosecureherprivacyandpersonal
informationandalsothatneitherthePIOnortheAAcouldestablishanyoverriding
publicinterestinoverrulingtheobjectionsmadebytheAppellanttothedisclosure
ofsuchinformation.
TheCICrecentlyon8thJanuary2014inthecaseofSunitaJainVs.BSNL
(CIC/BS/A/2012/002032/4300)heldthatinformationofimmoveableandmoveable
propertyreturnsofanofficerispersonalinformation,relatestothirdpartyandno
publicpurposeisinvolvedhence,exemptedu/s8(1)(j)oftheRTIActwhilerelying
ontheSCdecisiononGirishRamachandraDeshpandeVsCIC.
IsappellantaThirdParty?
If an applicant is seeking information which is under the control of an
officer/employeeofpublicauthoritythePIOcannotconsiderhimasthirdpartyand
seekhispermission/objectiontorevealit.Theemployeeofpublicauthoritywhose

personal information the RTI applicant seeking is certainly the third party,
especiallywhentheinformationsoughisnotrelatedtopublicauthoritysactivity.
Thus,whentheRTIapplicantinthiscaseseekingpersonalinformationor
informationwhichhasnoconnectionwithpublicactivityofappellant,appellanthas
everyrightasthirdpartytoallproceduresafeguardsprescribedunderRTIAct.
When the PIO and Appellate Authority decided to disclosure of such personal
information,shehaseveryrighttoapproachCommissionandseekpreventionof
disclosure.
Noreasonsgiven
NeitherthePIOnortheFAAgaveintheirrespectiveordersanyreasons
howandwhytheinformationtheyweredirectingtodisclosewasconsideredas
publicinformationorwhatwastheoverridingpublicinterestthatmadethemto
decidetodisclose.

TheCommissiondoesnotfindanyreasonforthedisclosureofpersonal
informationsoughtbytheRTIApplicantandtherespondentpublicauthorityhas
notmadeoutanycaseifthereisanyoverridingpublicinterestindisclosure.

TheRTIApplicantclaimedthathisfinancialinterestisaffectedinthematter
whereheisseekinglegalrelief.Thefactthatappellantissisterofapplicantswife
willnotinanywayestablishanyfinancialrelationshipbetweenhimandappellant.
HencePIO&FAAshouldhavestraightawayrefusedtodisclosesuchinformation.
TheRTIapplicanthasreferredtofollowingdecisionsofCIC:

a) CIC/SG/A/2009/000106/3889 27 June 2009 in Deep Public School case

whereinexemptionclaimedbythirdpartywasnotaccepted.Thisdecision
hasnothingtodowiththiscase.

b) The CIC Decision No.CIC/AD/A/09/00365 dt.4.5.2009 refers to wife

seekingcertifiedcopiesofdocumentsofpassportfileincludingmarriage
certificateandapplicationformassubmittedinthepassportofficewhich
wasdirectedtobeprovidedbyCICbecausesheislegallyweddedwife.

c) The CIC Decision No.3774/IC(A) 2009 F.No. CIC/MA/A/2009/000102

dt.18.3.2009 facilitated the housewife to secure information about her
husband.

d) The CIC decision No.1816/IC(A)/2008 F.No. CIC/MA/A/2007/00583

dt.10.1.2008facilitatedhusbandtogetPFdetailsofthewifebecausehe
hadafinancialinterest.

e) The CIC Decision No.2993/IC(A)/2008 F.No. CIC/MA/A/2008/00866

dt.5.8.08facilitatedthewifetosecurewhereaboutsandresidentialaddress
ofherhusbandworkinginONGC.
The above cited cases (b) to (e) refer to the information sought about
husband/wifebywife/husband.Inthepresentcase,Appellantssisteristhewifeof
theRTIApplicantandthereisnootherrelationship. HencetheRTIApplicant
cannotdependonthesedecisionstosecuretheinformationaboutpersonallife
andserviceofawomanwhoisnothiswife.

4.

The Commission, hence, sets aside the orders of PIO and Appellate

Authority, allows appeal and directs the respondent not to disclose the above
soughtpersonalinformationtotheRTIapplicant.

(M.SridharAcharyulu)
InformationCommissioner
Authenticatedtruecopy

(TarunKumar)
AdditionalRegistrar