Court emphasizes mandatory compliance with RTI Act provisions on personal information and third-party rights
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench has quashed an order from the State Information Commission, which had directed the release of the service records of a police officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The court highlighted the necessity of adhering to the statutory provisions concerning the disclosure of personal information and third-party rights.
The case involved a writ petition filed by Narsing Ganpatrao Ankushkar, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, challenging the order dated January 15, 2015, by the Commissioner of the State Information Commission, Aurangabad Bench. The order had mandated the Information Officer to disclose Ankushkar's service records following an appeal by respondent Balaji Pandharinath Thorat.
Justice Abasaheb D. Shinde, presiding over the matter, emphasized that the RTI Act's Sections 8(1)(j) and 11, which govern the disclosure of personal information, were not complied with by the State Information Commission. The court noted that personal information is exempt from disclosure unless a larger public interest is demonstrated, and any order for such disclosure must involve a notice and an opportunity for the third party to be heard.
The petitioner argued that the information sought by the respondent pertained to his service records, which are personal and unrelated to public interest. The court concurred, stating that the service records fall under "personal information" and are protected from disclosure unless a compelling public interest is evident.
Additionally, the court pointed out that the State Information Commission failed to issue a notice to Ankushkar, depriving him of an opportunity to contest the disclosure, a procedural requirement under Section 11 of the RTI Act. This omission rendered the order non-compliant with the law.
Justice Shinde underscored the importance of balancing transparency with privacy rights, noting that any potential harm from disclosure must be weighed against the public interest. The court referenced previous judgments, including those from the Supreme Court, which reinforced the necessity of safeguarding personal information unless justified by a larger public interest.
In light of these findings, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and reiterating the mandatory procedures for handling third-party information under the RTI Act.
Bottom Line:
Right to Information Act, 2005 - Disclosure of personal information of a third party requires compliance with Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of the Act, including giving the third party a notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Statutory provision(s): Right to Information Act, 2005 Sections 8(1)(j), 11, 19(4)
