Central Board of Secondary Education v.

Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497

Issue

The question, in this case, was whether a student’s right to information under The Act involves the
right to request and evaluate his answer sheets and take certified copies with them? The Central
Board of Secondary Education stated that the reason it held the information is that there existed a
fiduciary relationship and hence, came under the exemption provisions of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI
Act. 

Judgment

Fiduciary Relationship is defined as one party having confidence in the other party with regards to
his affairs, business, and or transactions. An examining body cannot be in a fiduciary relationship
with reference to students who take the exam. Therefore, there existed no exemption under the
Section, and answer books had to be provided to the student. 

Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission & Ors (2013) 1 SCC 212

Facts

In this case, the petitioner requested copies of all memos, show cause notices, and penalizations on
the third party, i.e., a public officer from his employer. The application also requested details of his
investments, credit, and loans from banks, etc. He also demanded the details of gifts he received at
the marriage of his son by him and his family. The information sought was detailed in the
respondent’s income tax returns. 

Issue

Whether the information sought comes under the criteria of ‘personal information’ as stipulated
in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act?

Judgment

It was held that all the details sought by the petitioner came under the ambit of the Section. In an
organisation, the acts and performance of an employee are between him and his employer and
these aspects are under the definition of ‘personal information’. Its disclosure has no benefit for the
public interest and harms the privacy of such employees. 

R. Rajagopal & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), SC 

Facts

In this case, petitioners were the employees of a Tamil magazine, Nakkeeran. The demand of the
employees was to stop the respondents from interfering in their publication of the autobiography of
a prisoner. The petitioners initially brought this under the violation of Freedom of Expression.
However, a judgment pertaining to Section 8(1)(j) was given in the ratio of the judgment. 

Judgment

The respondents were claiming the Right to Privacy of the prisoner but it was stipulated that for
information already present in the government will be the textbook definition of a Public Record.
The Right to Privacy can only be evoked in rare cases in such circumstances. This was stipulated to be
similar to Section 8(1)(j) as it does not protect information that is of public interest. It further states
certain information not being disclosed for it has the capacity to invade a person’s privacy. However,
the judgment also stated that public officials Right to Privacy cannot be invoked in respect of their
duties in that capacity.

Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294]

In this case, Association for Democratic Reforms had filed a petition with the Delhi High Court to
pressure authorities to implement certain recommendations stipulating ways to make the electoral
process more transparent, fair, and equitable. Upon the request of the government, the Law
Commission had provided recommendations that required the Election Commission to make it
mandatory for candidates to release their personal background information such as criminal history,
financial details, qualifications, and information to judge the candidate’s capacity.

Judgment 

After the Union of India filed an appeal in the Supreme Court, it ordered the Election Commission to
formulate necessary orders to require all candidates to furnish information on the following aspects
of their background: 

1. Criminal charges and convictions

2. Pending cases where the candidate is an accused

3. All assets including those of her spouse

4. All liabilities 

5. Educational qualifications

Citing Section 8(1)(j), the Court also stated that any information which will not be denied to the
Parliament or the State Legislature should not be denied to any person.

R.K. Jain v. Union of India JT 2013 (10) SC 430

Facts

In this  case the petitioner applied to the Information Officer to produce copies of all sheets and
correspondence pages of a file regarding Ms. Jyoti Balasundram, a Judicial Member of the Customs,
Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, under the RTI Act. The Central Information Officer denied
the file on the grounds that personal information was exempt under Section 8(1)(j). The petitioner
filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. 

Issue

1. Whether the ACR of an officer comes under personal information?

2. Does public interest override the privacy of the person?

Judgment

The Court held that information regarding charges, penalties, or sanctions of an employee and
records of such nature was necessarily a matter between the employee and his employer and the
disclosure of which has no public interest but would result in a threat to the privacy of a person. The
Court also upheld that if the Information Officer or the appellate authority feels that the public
interest is justified the disclosure of such information but the petitioner cannot claim those details as
a matter of right.

Pinki Ganirewal v. Union Public Service Commission

Facts

In this case, information was sought by the petitioner about the selection list of eleven Deputy
Director of Mines Safety by the Service Commission. The information was released with the
seniority-cum-merit list but the personal information of the selected candidates was rejected on the
grounds of exemption provisions under Section 8.

Judgment

The court held that the Commission had committed error in ordering the Service Commission to not
provide the information as requested. It held that the information sought after is necessary for the
larger public interest and therefore, the request and the release does not come under Section 8. The
Court directed that information regarding the year of graduating, institution, caste, and date of birth
can be released in the greater public interest as the benefits outweigh the harms.

. Karnataka Information Commissioner Vs. PIO (HC) (2013)

This has been one of the important and latest judgments of Supreme Courts on Right to Information
Act. An RTI applicant had requested Karnataka High Court for bringing certified copies of
documents/information regarding guidelines and rules pertaining to the scrutiny and classification of
writ petitions. But the PIO had refused his request saying that he should seek information under the
Karnataka High Court rules. When the matter went to the State Information Commission, it had
disagreed with the PIO and ordered that the information has to be provided under the RTI Act. The
Commission challenged this order before the Supreme Court. The information commissioner had
filed this petition.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court was offended with the petition filed by an Information Commissioner. It said that
the commissioner have no locus standi and were wasting public money by challenging the order. It
had imposed a cost of Rs. 1, 00,000 on the commission. This harsh snub by the Supreme Court had
silenced the Information Commissions into not questioning the courts

Canara Bank Vs. CS Shyam Civil appeal no. 22 of 2009

It is one of the landmark judgments on RTI Act. Canara Bank which is a Nationalised bank and a
prestigious institution in Delhi had called out the orders passed by the Central Information
Commission. On the request made by the second respondent in the writ petition, it had directed the
bank to furnish important information as requested by the second respondent. A respondent had
submitted an application to the Public Information Officer of the appellant Bank under Section 6 of
the Act. It had also sought information regarding transfer and posting of the entire clerical staff from
1.01.2002 to 31.07.2006 in all the branches of the appellant bank.

Judgment:
With this latest judgment of Supreme court on Right to Information Act, the Supreme Court held
that under Section 11 (1), information relates to or has been supplied by a third party is treated
confidential. In case, the Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Officer intends to
disclose such information, then after the written notice to the third party of the request, the officer
can disclose the information. So, Section 11 is not an exemption, but it’s just a procedural provision
to safeguard the interest of the third party. The Court’s statement implies that if third party objects
to the disclosure of information, then it can only be given if there is a larger public interest in
disclosure.

 The CPIO, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal & Anr.

A Single Judge of Delhi High Court was dealing with the issue about declaration of personal assets of
judges of the Supreme Court. In a full court meeting held in 1997, a resolution was passed stating
that all judges of the Supreme Court of India declare their assets to the Chief Justice of India. In
2009, an activist Subhash Chandra Aggarwal had sought a copy of the resolution from the Central
Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India (CPIO). He had also sought details of the assets of
the Chief Justices of various High Courts. But, the request was denied by the CPIO. Hence, he had
approached Central Information Commission. The Single judge bench of the Delhi High Court had
upheld the CIC ruling saying that CJI comes under the ambit of the RTI Act. However, CPIO
challenged the Delhi High Court judgment by filing an appeal with Supreme Court of India.

Judgment

After a decade long wait, finally on 13th November 2019, the Supreme Court of India held that the
office of the Chief Justice of India comes under the definition of ‘public authority’ in the Right to
Information Act, upholding the landmark judgment of Delhi High Court. Majority of judges had held
that CJI’s office should be brought under the RTI Act 2005 because public interest is foremost.

Reserve Bank of India v Jayantilal Mistry

The issue before the Court in this case was whether the Reserve Bank of India as well as other banks
can deny information sought by the public on the ground of economic interest commercial
confidence, fiduciary relationship with other Bank on the one hand and the public interest on the
other, and if not, to what extent can information be provided by the banks under the right to
Information Act, 2005? Answering the question in the negative, the Court held that the RBI was to
act in the interest of the public at large for it is the statutory duty of the Reserve Bank to comply
with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Court rejected the argument that
information could be withheld in view of the fiduciary relationship with other banks and held that
the RBI does not place itself in a fiduciary relationship with the Financial institutions because, the
reports of the inspections, statements of the bank, information related to the business obtained by
the RBI are not under the pretext of confidence or trust.