Sie sind auf Seite 1von 40

ShaileshGandhi

Adult,Agedabout66years
Hindu,IndianInhabitant,residingat
B2,GokulApartment,PodarRoad,
Santacruz,(West)Mumbai400054

)
)
)
)
)

Versus

..Petitioners

)
)
)
)

ig
h

1TheCentralInformationCommission
R.No.326,CWing,IIFloor,
AugustKrantiBhavan
BhikajiCamaPlace,NewDelhi110066

C
ou

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY
CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION
WRITPETITIONNO.8753OF2013

rt

wp875313(reserve)

2TheCentralPublicInformationOfficer )
Asst.CommissionerofIncomeTax18(2) )
PiramalChambers,1stfloor,Room,No.15)
Lalbaug,Mumbai400012
)
)
)
)
)
)

..Respondents

om

ba
y

3ShriAjitAPawar
TheDeputychiefMinisterof
StateofMaharashtra
Deogiri,NarayanDabholkarRoad,
MalabarHill,Mumbai400006

ShriJabbarShaikhi/bMr.SandeepJalanforthePetitioner
ShriRaviKadamSeniorAdvocate,i/bMr.V.P.SawantfortheRespondent
No.3
Mr.A.R.MalhtorawithMr.N.A.KazifortheRespondentNo.2
CORAM: R.M.SAVANT,J.
RESERVEDON: 6thMAY,2015
PRONOUNCEDON:11thJUNE2015
JUDGMENT
1

Rule,withtheconsentoftheLearnedCounselforthepartiesmade

returnableforthwithandheard.
mmj

1of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:48 :::

wp875313(reserve)

The Writ Jurisdiction ofthisCourtisinvokedagainsttheorder

rt

dated1552013passedbytheRespondentNo.1i.e.theCentralInformation

C
ou

Commissionbywhichorder,theSecondAppealfiledbythePetitionerunder
theRighttoInformationAct2005,(hereinafterreferredtoasthesaidAct)
cametobedismissedandresultantly,theorderspassedbytheCentralPublic
InformationOfficer(CPIOforshort)oftheIncomeTaxDepartmentandthe

ig
h

order dated 522013 passed by the First Appellate Authority came to be


confirmed.

ThePetitionerabovenamedclaimstobeanRTIactivistandisa

formerCentralInformationCommissioner(CIC).Presently,thePetitioneristhe

ba
y

Chairman of the Technical Advisory Committee set up by the Municipal


CorporationofGreaterMumbaitoadviseonRTI,inahonorarycapacity.

om

ThePetitioneronorabout21112012madeanapplicationunder

Section6ofthesaidAct,totheCPIOoftheIncomeTaxDepartmentinteralia

requestingcertaininformationandmoreparticularlytheIncomeTaxReturns
and balance sheets of the Respondent No.3 herein for the preceding three
years.ThePetitionerinthesaidapplicationjustifiedtheinformationsoughtby
statingtothefollowingeffect:Thereisalargerpublicinterestindisclosing
thisinformationtocomparehisaffidavitgiventotheElectionCommissionwith
hisIncomeTaxreturns.SincetheinformationrelatedtotheRespondentNo.3

mmj

2of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:48 :::

wp875313(reserve)

whoisathirdparty,itseemsthatintermsofSection11ofthesaidAct,aletter

rt

wasaddressedbytheCPIOtotheRespondentNo.3.Areplywasreceivedfrom

C
ou

theRespondentNo.3opposingthedisclosureofanyinformation.TheCPIOof
theIncomeTaxDepartmentthereafterbyherorderdated212013deniedthe
saidinformationsoughtbythePetitioner.Itwasobservedinthesaidorderthat
theinformationsoughtforhasnorelationshiptoanypublicactivityorinterest

ig
h

andthereforedoesnotqualifyinviewoftheprovisionsofSection8(1)(j)of
thesaidAct.ThePetitionerwashoweverinformedthatifheisaggrievedby
the said order, he may file an Appeal before the First Appellate Authority

whosedesignationwasmentionedinthesaidorder.

ThePetitioneraccordinglyfiledaFirstAppealunderSection19of

ba
y

thesaidAct.ThesaidAppealinteraliacontainedthegroundsonwhichthe
orderwaschallenged,oneofthegroundsintheAppealwasthatthedisclosure

om

of the information to another person cannot be construed as being


unwarrantedinvasionofthe privacyof theindividual.Another groundthat

wassetoutwasthatthefulfillmentofthestatutoryrequirementswouldnotbe
covered by the exemption contemplated under Section 8(1)(j). A further
groundwhichwassetoutwasthattheinformationwhichcannotbedeniedto
Parliament,acitizenwouldbeentitledtothesameinformation,asParliament
itselfderiveditslegitimacyfromthecitizens,andlastlyitwassetoutthatthe
standardofdisclosureforthosewhowanttobepublicservantshasbeenset

mmj

3of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

higherbytheApexCourtintheJudgmentinUnionofIndiaVs.Association

rt

for Democratic Reforms & Anr.(ADR)1. The said order was therefore

C
ou

challengedonthegroundthatexemptionunderSection8(1)(j)doesnotapply.

TheFirstAppealwasconsideredbytheAppellateAuthorityi.e.the

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax18(2) who by his order dated 52

ig
h

2013 rejected the said Appeal. The First Appellate Authority reiterated the
groundsonwhichtheinformationwasdeniedbytheCPIO.TheFirstAppellate
AuthorityreferredtotheJudgmentoftheApexCourtinthecaseof Girish

Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commission & Ors. 2


whereintheApexCourthasheldthatthedetailsdisclosedbyapersoninhis

ba
y

Income Tax returns is personal information which stands exempted from


disclosureunderclause(1)ofSection8(j)ofthesaidActunlesslargerpublic
interestisinvolved.TheFirstAppellateAuthorityheldthatinviewofthethird

om

party'sobjectionasalsoinviewofthedecisionoftheApexCourtin Girish
Ramchandra Deshpande's case (supra), the information sought by the

PetitionerfallsundertheexemptedcategoryspecifiedunderSection8(1)(j)of
the said Act. The First Appellate Authority further observed that the said
information is a personal information the disclosure of which has no
relationship to any public activity or interest and which would cause
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the concerned party. Hence on the
1 (2002)5SupremeCourtCases294
2 (2013)1SupremeCourtCases212

mmj

4of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

rt

aforesaidgrounds,theAppealfiledbythePetitionercametoberejected.

ThePetitionerthereafterfiledaSecondAppealbeforetheCentral

C
ou

Information Commission, New Delhi. The Petitioner in the Second Appeal


relieduponthejudgmentoftheApexCourtinthematterofR.Rajgopalalias
R.R.Gopal&Anr.Vs.StateofTamilNadu&Ors. 3andtheJudgmentofthe

ig
h

ApexCourtin Association for Democratic Rights's case (supra),a ground


was raised that the judgment of the Apex Court in Girish Ramchandra
Desphande'scase(supra)hasbeenrenderedwithoutconsideringthesaidtwo

judgmentsasalsowithoutconsideringtheprovisotothesaidSection8(1)(j)of
the said Act. The said Second Appeal filed by the Petitioner came to be

ba
y

disposedofbytheCentralInformationCommissionerbyupholdingtheorders
passedbythePublicInformationOfficerandtheFirstAppellateAuthority.The
CentralInformationCommissionerinhisorderreferredtothe5MemberBench

om

Judgment dated 562009 of the Commission wherein the said 5 Member


BenchhadheldthatIncomeTaxReturnshavebeenrightlyheldtobepersonal

informationexemptedfromdisclosureunderclause8(1)(j)ofthesaidAct.The
SecondAppellateAuthorityalsoreferredtothejudgmentoftheApexcourtin
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case (supra) holding that the details
disclosedbyapersoninhisIncomeTaxReturnsispersonalinformationwhich
hasbeenexemptedfromdisclosureunderclause(j)ofSection8(1)ofthesaid
Act, unless involved a larger public and the CPIO and or State Public
3 (1994)6SupremeCourtCases632

mmj

5of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

InformationOfficerortheAppellateAuthorityissatisfiedthatthelargerpublic

rt

interestjustifiesthedisclosureofsuchinformation.TheCentralInformation

C
ou

CommissionerhasobservedthatinthepresentAppealthePetitionerhasnot
beenabletoproveanylargerpublicinterestwithcorroborativeevidenceand
thereforeupheldthedecisionsoftheCentralPublicInformationOfficerand
the First Appellate Authority and disposed of the said Second Appeal. As

ig
h

indicatedabove,itisthesaidorderdated1532015,passedbytheCentral
InformationCommissionerwhichistakenexceptiontobywayoftheabove
Petition.

An Affidavit in Reply dated 2722014 is filed on behalf of the


RespondentNo.2.TheLearnedCounselforthePetitionersubmittedWritten

ba
y

Submissionson752015.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL MR. JABBAR SHAIKH ON

om

BEHALFOFTHEPETITIONER
(i)

ThattheCentralPublicInformationOfficer,theFirstAppellateAuthority

and the Central Information Commissioner have erred in rejecting the


applicationfiledbythePetitionerseekingtheIncomeTaxReturnsfor3yearsof
theRespondentNo.3whichhavebeensoughtforbythesaidapplicationonthe
groundthatthesaidinformationisexemptedunderSection8(1)(j)ofthesaid
Act.
(ii)

mmj

Thatallthethreeauthoritiesbelowhavefailedtoappreciatethatthe

6of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

filingoftheIncomeTaxReturnsisapublicactivityandisamatterofpublic

(iii)

C
ou

IncomeTaxReturnsareprovidedtotheApplicant.

rt

interest and hence privacy of the Respondent No.3 is not breached if the

That Section 8(1)(j) itself postulates that the larger public interest

justifiesthedisclosureoftheinformationsoughtbytheApplicantthenthesaid

ig
h

informationhastobeprovided.Theauthoritiesbelowhavefailedtoappreciate
the reason why the Applicant was seeking the said information which was

(iv)

soughtbyhimbytheapplicationinquestion.

Thattheauthoritiesbelowhaveerredinapplyingthejudgmentofthe5

ba
y

MemberBenchoftheInformationCommissionasalsotheJudgmentofthe
ApexCourtin GirishRamchandraDeshpande'scase (supra)asthefactsin

om

thesaidcasesaredistinguishablefromthefactsofthepresentcase.

(v)

Thatthe Judgmentin GirishRamchandraDeshpande's case(Supra)

doesnotlaydownanypropositionoflawandthereforecannotbeapplied.

(vi)

ThatthedisclosureoftheinformationsoughtforbytheApplicantwould

beinlargerpublicinterestwhichoutweighsthebreachofprivacyifanyofthe
RespondentNo.3.

mmj

7of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

(vii) That the authorities below failed to consider the application on the

rt

touchstoneoftheprovisotoSection8(1)(j)ofthesaidActnamelythatthe

C
ou

informationwhichcannotbedeniedtotheParliamentortheStateLegislature
cannotbedeniedtoacitizen.

(viii) ThataDivisionBenchofthisCourtinthecaseofSurupSinghNaikVs.

ig
h

StateofMaharashtra4 hasdealtwiththeprovisotoSection8(1)(j)andhas
held in the said case that the information which cannot be denied to the

(ix)

ParliamentortheStateLegislaturecannotbedeniedtothecitizen.

That the disclosure of the information is in larger public interest has

ba
y

been demonstrated by the Petitioner by making out a case in the Appeal


namelythatthesamewouldamounttoreducingcorruptionandincreasingthe

om

faithintheelectedrepresentatives.

(x)

That the judgment in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case (supra)

doesnotlaydownanylawandthesaidJudgmentwaspurelybasedonfacts
and circumstances of the case and therefore has no precedential value.
RelianceissoughttobeplacedonthefollowingjudgmentsoftheApexCourt
(1)(1979)3SupremeCourtCases745inthematterofDalbirSingh&Ors.
Vs.StateofPunjab

4 AIR2007Bom121

mmj

8of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

(2)(1992)1SupremeCourtCases489inthematterofStateofPunjab&Ors.

rt

Vs.SurinderKumar&Ors.

C
ou

(3)(2002)8SupremeCourtCases361inthematterofS.ShanmugavelNadar
Vs.StateofT.N.&Anr.

(xi)

ThatithasbeenheldinthematterofPUCLVs.UnionofIndia5asalso

ig
h

inthematterofR.RajgopalaliasR.R.Gopal&Anr.Vs.StateofT.N.&Anr. 6
andinthecaseofADRVs.PUCL7thatthepublicinterestelementinvolvedin

therighttoprivacy.

divulginginformationrelatingtopublicservants,MP'sandMinistersoutweighs

ba
y

SUBMISSIONOFTHELEARNEDCOUNSELMR.MALHOTRAON BEHALF
OFTHERESPONDENTNO.2
(i)

ThattheorderspassedbytheCPIO,theFirstAppellateAuthorityandthe

om

Central Information Commissioner cannot be faulted with in view of the


JudgmentoftheApexCourtinthematterof R.K.JainVs.UnionofIndia&

Anr.8andtheJudgmentofthe5MemberbenchoftheCommissionerwhereby
ithasbeenheldthattheIncomeTaxReturnsfallintheexemptedcategory
underSection8(1)(j)ofthesaidAct.

5
6
7
8

AIR2003SC2363
(1994)6SupremeCourtCases632
(2002)5SCC294
(2013)14SupremeCourtCases794

mmj

9of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

(ii)

ThatthePetitionerhasnotbeenabletoconnecttheinformationsought

rt

i.e.theIncomeTaxReturnsoftheRespondentNo.3withanypublicactivityof

providetheinformationtothePetitioner.

C
ou

theRespondentNo.3andthereforetheauthoritieswererightinrefusingto

SUBMISSIONOFTHELEARNEDSENIORCOUNSELMR.R.M.KADAMON

ig
h

BEHALFOFTHERESPONDENTNO.3

(i)

That from the reason mentioned in the application for seeking the

information that the Petitioner/Applicant has sought in respect of the


Respondent No.3 no case of public interest has made out and hence the

ba
y

Petitionerhasfailedtodischargetheburdenwhichwouldentitlehimtothe
saidinformation.RelianceisplacedonthejudgmentoftheApexCourtinthe
matterofBiharPublicServiceCommissionVs.SaiyedHussanAbbasRizvi

om

&Anr.9

(ii)

That the information sought namely the Income Tax Returns of the

RespondentNo.3hasnorelationwithanypublicactivityoftheRespondent
No.3

(iii)

ThatinviewoftheJudgmentoftheApexCourtinGirishRamchandra

Deshpande's case (supra) which has been reiterated by the Apex Court in
9 (2012)13SCC61

mmj

10of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

R.K.Jain's case(supra), theinformationrelatingtothe IncomeTaxReturns

rt

fallswithintheexemptedcategoryunderSection8(1)(j)andsincenocaseof

C
ou

public interest has been made out by the Petitioner, the said information
cannotbeprovided.Theauthoritiesbelowwerethereforerightinrejectingthe
applicationofthePetitioner.

That the Judgments on which reliance is placed on behalf of the

ig
h

(iv)

Petitionerhavenorelevanceinthecontextoftheinformationsoughtbythe
PetitionerundertheRighttoInformationAct.TheRighttoInformationActisa

selfcontainedcodeandunlesspublicinterestismadeoutorthatthepublic
interestoutweighstherighttoprivacyoftheRespondentNo.3,theinformation

(v)

ba
y

soughtbythePetitionercannotbeprovided.

ThattherelianceplacedbythePetitionerontheprovisotoSection8(1)

om

(j)ismisplacedasthemattercannotbeapproachedfromtheperspectiveand
hypothesisthattheinformationsoughtcannotbedeniedtotheParliamentor

the State Legislature and therefore cannot be denied to the Petitioner. The
Parliamenthasitsownrulesofbusinessanditcannotbepresumedthatthe
information in respect of Income Tax Returns of a member of the State
Legislaturewouldbesought.RelianceisplacedonthejudgmentofaLearned
SingleJudgeoftheDelhiHighCourtinthematterofVijayPrakashVs.Union
ofIndia10
10 160(2009)DelhiLawTimes631

mmj

11of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

ThattheJudgmentin SurupSinghNaik's case(supra) thoughdealing

rt

(vi)

C
ou

withthesaidprovisoisclearlydistinguishableonfactsandthereforethesaid
Judgmenthasnoapplication.

(vii) That the reason given by the Petitioner for seeking the information

ig
h

cannot stand scrutiny in view of the fact that under the Representation of
PeopleAct,1950,ifincorrectinformationisprovidedbyacandidate,thenthe
candidatecanbeprosecutedunderSection125ofthesaidAct.TheParliament

initswisdomhavingdirectedthecandidatetoprovidetheinformationtothe
extentmentionedinthesaidActatthetimeoffilingofthenomination,itisfor

ba
y

the Parliament to determine if any further information is required to be


divulged by the candidate for which necessary amendment in the
RepresentationofPeopleActwouldhavetobemade.Itisthereforenotopen

om

forthePetitionertocontendthatthePetitionerseekstheinformationsoughtas
hewantstocrosschecktheinformationgivenbytheRespondentNo.3atthe

filingofhisnominationformwiththeIncomeTaxReturns.

(viii) ThattheElectionCommissionintheinterestofconductingfreeandfair
elections has the power to issue appropriate directions. However since the
ElectionCommissionhasnotprovidedforfilingofIncomeTax Returnsthe
said information cannot be sought by having recourse to the Right to

mmj

12of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

C
ou

informationgivenatthetimeoffilingthenomination.

CONSIDERATION
8

rt

InformationActonthegroundthattheinformationistobecomparedwiththe

Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, I have

consideredtherivalcontentions.Thequestionthatarisesforconsiderationin

ig
h

theinstantmatteriswhetherthePetitionerisentitledtotheinformationhe
hassoughtforvidehisapplicationfiledunderthesaidActorwhetherthesaid
informationfallswithintheexemptedcategoryunderSection8(1)(j)ofthe

saidAct.Atthisstage,itwouldnecessarytorefertotheprovisionsofthesaid
Actwhichhaveabearingintheinstantmatter.ThesaidprovisionsareSection

ba
y

Section8(1)(j)andSection11ofthesaidAct,whichforthesakeofready
referencearereproducedhereinunder:

om

8. Exemption from disclosure of information. (/)


Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,
thereshallbenoobligationtogiveanycitizen,
(a) ...........
(b) ...........
(c) ...........
(d) ...........
(e) ...........
(f) ...........
(g) ...........
(h) ...........
(i) ...........
(j) information which relates to personal information
thedisclosureofwhichhasnorelationshiptoany
public activity or interest, or which would cause

mmj

13of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

C
ou

rt

unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the


individual unless the Central Public Information
OfficerortheStatePublicInformationOfficerorthe
appellateauthority,asthecasemaybe,issatisfied
thatthelargerpublicinterestjustifiesthedisclosure
ofsuchinformation:
Provided that the information which cannot be
deniedtotheParliamentoraStateLegislatureshall
notbedeniedtoanyperson.

ig
h

(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets


Act,1923(19of1923)noranyoftheexemptions
permissible in accordance with subsection (/), a
publicauthoritymayallowaccesstoinformation,if
publicinterestindisclosureoutweighstheharmto
theprotectedinterests.

om

ba
y

(3) Subjecttotheprovisionsofclauses (a),(c) and (i)


ofsubsection(/),anyinformationrelatingtoany
occurrence,eventormatterwhichhastakenplace,
occurredorhappenedtwentyyearsbeforethedate
onwhichanyrequestismadeundersection6shall
beprovidedtoanypersonmakingarequestunder
thatsection:
Providedthatwhereanyquestionarisesastothe
datefromwhichthesaidperiodoftwentyyearshas
to be computed, the decision of the Central
Government shall be final, subject to the usual
appealsprovidedforinthisAct.

11.Thirdpartyinformation.
(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a
StatePublicInformationOfficer,asthecasemaybe,
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
partyandhasbeentreatedasconfidentialbythat
thirdparty,theCentralPublicInformationOfficeror
mmj

14of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

ig
h

C
ou

rt

StatePublicInformationOfficer,asthecasemaybe,
shall, within five days from the receipt of the
request,giveawrittennoticetosuchthirdpartyof
therequestandofthefactthattheCentralPublic
Information Officer or State Public Information
Officer,asthecasemaybe,intendstodisclosethe
informationorrecord,orpartthereof,andinvitethe
third party to make a submission in writing or
orally,regardingwhethertheinformationshouldbe
disclosed, and such submission of the third party
shallbekeptinviewwhiletakingadecisionabout
disclosureofinformation:

Provided that except in the case of trade or


commercialsecretsprotectedbylaw,disclosuremay
be allowed if the public interest in disclosure
outweighs in importance any possible harm or
injurytotheinterestsofsuchthirdparty.

om

ba
y

(2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public


Information Officer or State Public Information
Officer,asthecasemaybe,undersubsection(/)to
athirdpartyinrespectofanyinformationorrecord
orpartthereof,thethirdpartyshall,withintendays
fromthedateofreceiptofsuchnotice,begiventhe
opportunity to make representation against the
proposeddisclosure.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7,


the Central Public Information Officer or State
PublicInformationOfficer,asthecasemaybe,shall,
withinfortydaysafterreceiptoftherequestunder
section b, if the third party has been given an
opportunity to make representation under sub
section(2),makeadecisionastowhetherornotto
disclose the information or record or part thereof
andgiveinwritingthenoticeofhisdecisiontothe
third
(4) Anoticegivenundersubsection(3)shallincludea
statementthatthethirdpartytowhomthenoticeis

mmj

15of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

rt

givenisentitledtopreferanappealundersection
19againstthedecision.
In so far as Section 11 is concerned, if the information sought

C
ou

relatestoathirdparty,theCPIOortheStatePublicInformationOfficerasthe
casemaybeiswithin5daysfromthereceiptoftherequestisrequiredtogive
awrittennoticetosuchthirdpartyoftherequestandofthefactthattheCPIO

ig
h

ortheStatePublicInformationOfficerasthecasemaybeintendstodisclose
theinformationortherecordorpartthereofandinvitedthethirdpartyto
makeasubmissioninwritingororallyregardingwhetherthesaidinformation

shouldbedisclosed.HenceintermsofSection11,thethirdpartyisrequiredto
begivenanoticeandthereplygivenbythethirdpartytotherequestmade

10

ba
y

hastobeconsideredbytheInformationOfficerwhilstdecidingtheapplication.

InsofarasSection8(1)(j)isconcerned,itrelatestothepersonal

om

informationofanindividualwhichhasnorelationshiptoanypublicactivityor
interest. The said clause (j) is a part of Section 8 which contains various

categories of information which are exempted from disclosure. In so far as


clause(j)isconcerned,theCPIOortheStatePublicInformationOfficermay
providethesaidinformationtotheinformationseekerifheissatisfiedthat
largerpublicinterestjustifiesthedisclosureofsuchinformation.Theprovisoto
thesaidclause(j)carvesoutanexemptionthattheinformationwhichcannot
bedeniedtotheParliamentortheStateLegislatureshallnotbedeniedtoany

mmj

16of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

person. It is on the touchstone of the aforesaid two provisions that the

rt

application filed by the Petitioner in the instant matter would have to be

C
ou

considered.ThePetitionerinhisapplicationmadeon21112012hassought
theIncomeTaxReturnsofthepreviousthreefinancialyearsoftheRespondent
No.3.ThereasonforwhichtheinformationsoughthasbeenstatedthusThere
isalargerpublicinterestindisclosingthisinformationtocomparehisaffidavit

ig
h

giventotheElectionCommissionwithhisIncomeTaxReturns.TheCPIOof
theIncomeTaxDepartmentsentanoticetotheRespondentNo.3whoinhis
replyobjectedtotheinformationbeingsuppliedtothePetitioner.Asindicated

hereinabove,thesaidapplicationofthePetitionercametoberejectedbythe
CPIO.Thereasonmentionedintheorderdated212013wastotheeffectthat

ba
y

theinformationsoughthasnorelationshiptoanypublicactivityorinterestand
itthereforedoesnotqualifyforbringdisclosedinviewofSection8(1)(j)ofthe

om

saidAct.

11

ThePetitioneraggrievedbythesaidorderdated212013filedan

AppealbeforetheFirstAppellateAuthorityunderSection19ofthesaidAct.
Afterjustifyingthereasonforseekinginformation,thePetitionerinparagraph
(4)ofthesaidAppealhasstatedtothefollowingeffect:
There is a general belief that politicians and
elected representatives are corrupt and mass
wealthattheexpenseofthepublic.Thereisalso
acommonbeliefthatIncomeTaxauthoritiesdo
notcheckthatITreturnsofthosewhoareelected
mmj

17of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

C
ou

withtheirdeclaredaffidavitsfiledatthetimeof
standingforelections.Ifthistrue,citizenswillact
asmonitorsandhelpcorrectsuchpractices.On
theotherhandifcitizensapprehensionsarenot
true,itwouldenhancethetrustandrespectfor
theelectedrepresentative,whichisnecessaryfor
a healthy democracy. Besides it would also
improve the Citizens' trust in the Income Tax
department.

rt

wp875313(reserve)

ig
h

HencethePetitionerhadsoughttosupplementthereasongivenin
hisoriginalapplicationbeforetheCPIObymakingageneralstatementinhis
Appealtotheeffectmentionedintheexcerptedportionofparagraph(4) as

aboveofhisAppeal.ThesaidAppealasindicatedabovewasdismissedbythe
FirstAppellateAuthoritybyitsorderdated522013andthereasonmentioned

ba
y

bytheCPIOwasreiteratedbytheFirstAppellateAuthority.TheFirstAppellate
AuthorityhasonlybroadenedthegroundmentionedbytheCPIObystating
thatthedisclosureofthesaidinformationwouldcauseunwarrantedinvasion

om

oftheprivacyoftheconcernedparty.Thegroundmentionedintheapplication
filedbythePetitionerbeforetheCPIOasalsothegroundmentionedinthe

Appeal filed by the Petitioner before the FirstAppellate Authorityhasbeen


advertedtosoastoconsiderwhetherthePetitionerhasmadeoutanycasefor
disclosure of the information on the ground of the same being in public
interest.

12

mmj

Atthisstage,itwouldbenecessarytorefertotheJudgmentofthe

18of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

ApexCourtinGirishRamchandraDeshpande'scase(supra)andR.K.Jain's

C
ou

rt

case(Supra)asalsothejudgmentofthe5MemberBenchoftheCommission.

In so far as Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case (supra) is


concerned, amongst the information sought by the Petitioner was the
informationrelatingtothedetailsoftheinvestmentsofthethirdpartyinthe

ig
h

saidcase,lendingandborrowingfrombanksandotherfinancialinstitutions,
thedetailsofthegiftssaidtohavebeenacceptedbytheRespondentNo.3were
alsosought.TheApexCourtobservedthattheinformationsoughtmostlyfinds

place in the Income Tax Returns of the Respondent No.3. The Apex Court
further observed that the details disclosed by a person in his Income Tax

ba
y

Returnsispersonalinformationwhichstandsexemptedfromdisclosureunder
clause(j)ofSection8(1)ofthesaidAct,unlessinvolveslargerpublicinterest
andtheCPIOortheStatePublicInformationOfficerortheAppellateAuthority

om

is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such
information. Paragraphs 11 to 13 of the judgment in Girish Ramchandra

Deshpande'scase(supra)arematerialandarereproducedhereinunder:

11. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all


memos, show cause notices and
censure/punishment awarded to the third
respondent from hisemployerandalso details
viz.movableandimmovablepropertiesandalso
the details of his investments, lending and
borrowing from Banks and other financial
mmj

19of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

C
ou

institutions.Further,hehasalsosoughtforthe
details of gifts stated to have accepted by the
third respondent, his family members and
friendsandrelativesatthemarriageofhisson.
Theinformationmostlysoughtforfindsaplace
in the income tax returns of the third
respondent.Thequestionthathascomeupfor
consideration is whether the abovementioned
informationsoughtforqualifiestobe"personal
information"asdefinedinclause(j)ofSection
8(1)oftheRTIAct.

rt

wp875313(reserve)

om

ba
y

ig
h

12. WeareinagreementwiththeCICandthecourts
belowthatthedetailscalledforbythepetitioner
i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third
respondent, show cause notices and orders of
censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be
personalinformationasdefinedinclause(j)of
Section8(1)oftheRTIAct.Theperformanceof
an employee/officer in an organization is
primarily a matter between the employee and
the employer and normally those aspects are
governedbytheserviceruleswhichfallunder
the expression "personal information", the
disclosure of which hasnorelationshipto 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
CentralPublicInformationOfficerortheState
Public Information Officer of the Appellate
Authority is satisfied that the larger public
interest justifies the disclosure of such
information,appropriateorderscouldbepassed
butthepetitionercannotclaimthosedetailsasa
matterofright.
13. Thedetailsdisclosedbyapersoninhisincome
tax returns are" personal information" which
standexemptedfromdisclosureunderclause(j)
ofSection8(1)oftheRTIAct,unlessinvolvesa

mmj

20of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

C
ou

larger public interest and the Central Public


Information Officer or the State Public
InformationOfficerortheAppellateAuthorityis
satisfiedthatthelargerpublicinterestjustifies
thedisclosureofsuchinformation.

rt

wp875313(reserve)

13

InsofarastheJudgmentinR.K.Jain'scase(supra)isconcerned,

thefactswereidenticalasthefactsinGirishRamchandraDeshpande'scase

ig
h

inasmuchastheinformationrelatingtotheservicerecordofthethirdparty
wassoughtbythePetitionerwhichwasdeniedonthegroundthatthesameis
personalinformationwhichstandsexemptedunderSection8(1)(j)ofthesaid

Act. The Apex Court referred to the Judgment in Girish Ramchandra


Deshpande'scase (supra)andespecially paragraphs11to13thereofand

ba
y

thereafter concluded that the said information could not be provided and
accordinglyaffirmedtheJudgmentoftheDivisionBenchoftheHighCourt.

om

Paragraph21ofthesaidreportismaterialandisreproducedhereinunder:

mmj

21. In view of the discussion made above and


the decision in this Court Girish Ramchandra
Deshpande,astheappellantsoughtforinspection
of the documents relating to the ACR of the
Member, CESTAT, inter alia relating to adverse
entriesintheACRandthefollowupactiontaken
therein on the question of integrity we find no
reasontointerferewiththeimpugnedjudgment
passedbytheDivisionBenchwherebytheorder
passed by the learned Single Judge was
affirmed.

21of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

14

In so far as the Judgment of the 5 Member Bench of the

rt

Commissionisconcerned,the5MemberBenchhaswhilstdecidingtheAppeal

C
ou

has referred to various Judgments of the Commission and thereafter has


concluded that the Income Tax Returns fall in the category of personal
informationandisthereforeexemptedunderSection8(1)(j)ofthesaidAct.

HencewhatflowsfromtheJudgmentsoftheApexCourtisthat

ig
h

15

the Income Tax Returns constitute personal information and are exempted
fromdisclosureunderSection8(1)(j)andthatthesaidpersonalinformation

canonlybedivulgediftheCPIOortheStatePublicInformationOfficerreaches
a conclusion that it would be in the larger public interest to reveal such

ba
y

information.Intheinstantcase,thereasonsetforthinthefirstapplication
filedbythePetitionerbeforethePublicInformationOfficerhardlymakesouta
casefortheinformationtobedisclosedonthegroundofpublicinterest.Inso

om

far as the ground made out in the Appeal filed before the First Appellate
Authorityisconcerned,thePetitionerhassoughttomakeageneralstatement

whichdoesnotspecificallyrelatetotheRespondentNo.3.ThePetitionerhas
alsosoughttojustifytheinformationsoughtonthegroundthattheIncome
TaxauthoritiesdonotchecktheIncomeTaxReturnsofthosewhoareelected
withtheirdeclaredaffidavitsfiledatthetimeofstandingforelections.The
saidgroundalsodoesnotmakeoutanycaseoftherebeinganypublicinterest
involvedinthedisclosureoftheinformationsoughtbythePetitionerbywayof

mmj

22of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

theIncomeTaxReturnsoftheRespondentNo.3fortheprecedingthreeyears.

rt

ThePetitionerisinfactseekingtheinformationbyquestioningthemannerin

C
ou

whichtheIncomeTaxDepartmentfunctions.SincethePetitionerisseeking
information relating to the Respondent No.3 the Petitioner was required to
demonstrate as to how the disclosure of the information relating to the
RespondentNo.3wouldservepublicinterest.Asindicatedabove,thePetitioner

ig
h

hasmadeageneralandsweepingstatementwhichcanhardlybesaidtosatisfy
thetestofdisclosurebeingmadeinpublicinterest.

ThePetitionerhassoughttoassailtherelianceplacedbytheCIC
on the judgment in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case (supra) on the

ba
y

groundthatthesamedoesnotlaydownanylawandthatthesamehasbeen
renderedwithoutconsideringthejudgmentoftheApexCourtinPUCL'scase
and R.Rajgopal's case (supra). In the context of the challenge to the

om

applicability of the judgment in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case is


concerned,itwouldbenecessarytorevisitthefactsinvolvedinthesaidcase.

Inthesaidcase,asindicatedabovetheinformationsoughtwasrelatingtothe
service record of the Respondent No.3 in the said Petition as also the
informationrelatingtotheinvestments,loansandborrowingfrombanksand
otherfinancialinstitutions.Insofarastheinformationrelatingtotheservice
recordoftheRespondentNo.3isconcerned,theApexCourtobservedthatthe
samewouldbegovernedbyservicerulesandisamatterbetweentheemployer

mmj

23of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

andtheemployeeandthattheinformationfallswithintheexpressionpersonal

rt

information, disclosure of which according to the Apex Court had no

C
ou

relationship toany public activity or public interestand on the other hand


wouldcauseunwarrantedinvasionoftheprivacyofthatindividual.Insofaras
the information sought by the Petitioner / Applicant relating to the
investments,loansandborrowingfrombanks,theApexCourtheldthatthe

ig
h

same being part of the Income Tax Returns, is personal information which
standsexemptedfromthedisclosureunderSubSection(j)ofSection8(1)of
thesaidAct.TheApexCourtasindicatedaboveafterhavingrecordedthesaid

findingfurtherobservedthatinagivencaseiftheCPIOortheStatePublic
InformationOfficerortheAppellateAuthorityissatisfiedthatthelargerpublic

ba
y

interestjustifiesthedisclosureofsuchinformationappropriateorderscouldbe
passed,butthePetitionercannotclaimthesaiddetailsasamatterofright.
HencetheApexCourtin GirishRamchandra Deshpande'scase(Supra)was

om

directlyconcernedwithSection8(1)(j)ofthesaidActandexemptionfrom
disclosurecoveredbythesaidprovision,itisinthesaidcontextthattheApex

CourtmadeobservationsandrecordedafindingthatthedetailsintheIncome
TaxReturnsispersonalinformationandcanbedisclosedonlyifpublicinterest
so warrants. The Apex Court thereby laid down a proposition that the
informationcoveredbyclause8(1)(j)isanexemptedinformationandcanbe
disclosedonlyiftheCPIOortheAppellateAuthorityissatisfiedthatitwould
beinthepublicinteresttodoso.HencethecontentionurgedbytheLearned

mmj

24of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

Counsel for the Petitioner that the judgment in Girish Ramchandra

rt

Deshpande'scase(supra)laydownanylawhastoberejected.Inmyviewthe

C
ou

relianceplacedbythePetitioneronthejudgmentsoftheApexCourtreported
in1979(3)SupremeCourtCase745,1992(1)SupremeCourtCases489and

(2002) 8 Supreme Court Cases 361 to contend that Girish Ramchandra


Deshapande's case (supra) does not lay down any law, is thoroughly

ig
h

misplaced,asthesaidjudgmentshavebeenrenderedinthefactualcontext
prevailinginthesaidcases.HenceinsofaraswhethertheIncomeTaxReturns
fallintheexemptedcategorytheissuehasbeenconcludedbytheApexCourt

R.K.Jain'scase(supra).

in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case, which has been fetched in

16

ba
y

SincethePetitionerseemstobebasinghiscaseonthepurityof

electionsandprobityinpubliclife,beforeadvertingtothetwojudgmentsof

om

theApexCourtinthetwoPUCLcases,itwouldbenecessarytorefertothe
relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. By the

amendment carried out in the year 2002, Section 33A and 33B have been
introducedintheRepresentationofthePeopleAct.IntermsofSection33A,a
candidateshallapartfromanyinformationwhichheisrequiredtofurnishin
hisnominationhasalsotofurnishinformationastowhetherheisaccusedof
anyoffencepunishablewithimprisonmentfortwoyearsormoreinapending
caseinwhichachargehasbeenframed,whetherhehasbeenconvictedofan

mmj

25of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

offence, the candidate has to submit an affidavit in the prescribed from

rt

verifying the information specified in subsection (1). The returning officer

C
ou

aftertheinformationisfurnishedtohimundersubsection(1)displaysthe
saidinformationbydisplayingacopyofthesaidaffidavitataconspicuous
placeinhisoffice.Section33Bprovidesthatnocandidateisliabletodisclose
orfurnishanysuchinformationinrespectofhiselectionwhichisnotrequired

ig
h

tobedisclosedorfurnishedundertheActortherulesmadethereunder.

Section125Awhichhasalsobeenintroducedbytheamendment

oftheyear2002providesforprosecutionifthecandidatefailstofurnishthe
information specified in Section 33A or gives false information which he

ba
y

knowsorhasreasontobelievetobefalse.Henceareadingoftheaforesaid
provisionsdisclosethattohavefreeandfairelectionsandtobringpurityinthe
electoralprocessinthecountryandtobringprobityinpubliclifethatcertain

om

electoralreformswereintroducedwhicharenowreflectedintheframingof
Section33AandSection125AoftheRepresentationofthePeopleAct.Hence

the Parliament has provided for disclosure of information relating to the


candidatetotheextentmentionedinSection33A.Theplenarypowerofthe
ElectionCommissionofIndiatoissuedirectionsforafreeandfairconductof
theelectionscannotbedoubted,iftheElectionCommissionisoftheopinion
that some further directions are required to be issued to see to it that the
electionsarefreeandfairundoubtedlyhasthepowerstoissuethedirections.

mmj

26of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

However since the Parliament has deemed it appropriate to limit the

rt

informationinrespectofthecandidatetotheextentmentionedinSection33A,

C
ou

itisnotopenforacitizentocontendthatheseekscertaininformationtocross
checktheinformationwhichhasbeenrevealedbythecandidateatthetimeof
filingofhisnomination.Iftheinformationfurnishedbyacandidateisfalse,he
canbeprosecutedunderSection125AofthesaidAct.Intheinstantcase,as

ig
h

indicated above, the Petitioner has sought information to cross check the
information furnished by the Respondent No.3 at the time of filing of his
nominationwithhisIncomeTaxReturnsthesaidreasoncanthereforehardly

saidtosatisfythetestofthesamebeinginpublicinterest.Theinformation
soughtalsohasnoconnectionwithanypublicactivityoftheRespondentNo.3.

ba
y

ThePetitionerpossiblybeingawareofthesaidpositionhasthereforesoughtto
contendthatfilingoftheIncomeTaxReturnsisapublicactivity.Iamafraid
thesaidcontentionisthoroughlymisconceivedasfilingofIncomeTaxReturns

om

can be no stretch of imagination be said to be a public activity, but is an


obligationwhichacitizenowestotheStateviz.topayhistaxesandsincethe

saidinformationisheldbytheIncomeTaxDepartmentinafiduciarycapacity,
thesamecannotbedirectedtoberevealedunlesstheprerequisitesforthe
samearesatisfied.

17

Now coming to the judgment in P.U.C.L. and another's case

(supra). The said judgment concerns the directions issued by the Election

mmj

27of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

CommissionofIndiaunderArticle324oftheConstitutionofIndia.TheApex

rt

Court has summed up the legal and constitutional position which emerges

C
ou

fromthedirectionsissuedbytheElectionCommissionofIndiainParagraph46
ofthesaidjudgment.Paragraph46ofthesaidjudgment,isforthesakeof
readyreferencereproducedhereinunder:

ig
h

46 To sum up the legal and constitutional position


which emerges from the aforesaid discussion, it can be
statedthat:

1. ThejurisdictionoftheElectionCommissioniswide
enoughto includeallpowersnecessaryforsmooth
conductofelectionsandtheword`electionsisused
in a wide sense to include the entire process of
election which consists of several stages and
embracesmanysteps.

om

ba
y

2. Thelimitationonplenarycharacterofpoweriswhen
theParliamentorStateLegislaturehasmadeavalid
lawrelatingtoorinconnectionwithelections,the
Commissionisrequiredtoactinconformitywiththe
saidprovisions.Incasewherelawissilent,Articleis
areservoirofpowertoactfortheavowedpurposeof
havingfreeandfairelection.Constitutionhastaken
careofleavingscopeforexerciseofresiduarypower
bytheCommissioninitsownrightasacreatureof
the Constitutionintheinfinitevarietyofsituations
that may emerge from time to time in a large
democracy, as every contingency could not be
foreseen or anticipated by the enacted laws or the
rules. By issuing necessary directions, Commission
can fill the vacuum till there is legislation on the
subject. In Kanhiya Lal Omar's case, the Court
construed the expressions superintendence,
direction and control in Article 324 (1) and held
that a direction may mean an order issued to a
particularindividualorapreceptwhichmayhaveto
followanditmaybespecificorageneralorderand

mmj

28of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

rt

such phrase should be construed liberally


empowering the election commission to issue such
orders.

om

ba
y

ig
h

C
ou

3. The word electionsincludestheentire processof


election which consists of several stages and it
embraces manysteps,some ofwhichmayhavean
important bearing on the process of choosing a
candidate. Fair election contemplates disclosure by
thecandidateofhispastincludingtheassetsheldby
himsoastogiveaproperchoicetothecandidate
according to his thinking and opinion. As stated
earlier, in Common Cause case (supra) the Court
dealtwithacontentionthatelectionsinthecountry
arefoughtwiththehelpofmoneypowerwhichis
gathered from black sources and once elected to
power,itbecomeseasytocollecttonsofblackmoney,
whichisusedforretainingpowerandforreelection.
Ifonaffidavitacandidateisrequiredtodisclosethe
assetsheldbyhimatthetimeofelection,votercan
decidewhetherhecouldbereelectedevenincase
wherehehascollectedtonsofmoney.Presuming,as
contendedbythelearnedseniorcounselMr.Ashwini
Kumar,thatthisconditionmaynotbemucheffective
forbreakingaviciouscirclewhichhaspollutedthe
basicdemocracyinthecountyastheamountwould
beunaccounted.Maybetrue,stillthiswouldhaveits
owneffectasastepinaidandvotersmaynotelect
lawbreakers as lawmakers and some flowers of
democracymayblossom.

4. Tomaintainthepurityofelectionsandinparticular
tobringtransparencyintheprocessofelection,the
Commission can ask the candidates about the
expenditureincurredbythepoliticalpartiesandthis
transparency in process of election would include
transparencyofacandidatewhoseekselectionorre
election.Inademocracy,theelectoralprocesshasa
strategic role.Thelittle manofthiscountrywould
havebasicelementaryrighttoknowfullparticulars
ofacandidatewhoistorepresenthiminParliament

mmj

29of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

rt

wherelawstobindhislibertyandpropertymaybe
enacted.

C
ou

5. The right to get information in democracy is


recognized all throughout and it is natural right
flowingfromtheconceptofdemocracy.Atthisstage,
we would refer to Article 19[1] ad [2] of the
International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights
whichisasunder:
Everyoneshallhavetherighttoholdopinions
withoutinterference.

2.

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of


expression;thisrightshallincludefreedomto
seek,receiveandimpartinformationandideas
of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either
orally,inwritingorinprint,intheformofart,
orthroughanyothermediaofhischoice.

ig
h

1.

om

ba
y

6. Cumulative reading of plethoraof decisionsof this


Courtasreferredto,itisclearthatifthefieldmeant
for legislature and executive is left unoccupied
detrimentaltothepublicinterest,thisCourtwould
have ample jurisdiction under Article 32 read with
Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution to issue
necessary directions to the Executive to subserve
publicinterest.
7. UnderourConstitution,Article19(1)(a)providesfor
freedomofspeechandexpression.Votersspeechor
expressionincaseofelectionwouldincludecasting
ofvotes,thatistosay,voterspeaksoutorexpresses
bycastingvote.Forthispurpose,informationabout
the candidate to be selected is must. Voter's (little
mancitizen's) right to know antecedents including
criminalpastofhiscandidatecontestingelectionfor
MPorMLAismuchmorefundamentalandbasicfor
survivalofdemocracy.Thelittlemanmaythinkover
beforemakinghischoiceofelectinglawbreakersas
lawmakers.

mmj

30of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

18

InsofarasthenextjudgmentoftheApexCourtin P.U.C.L.and

rt

another's case (supra) is concerned, the Apex Court was considering the

C
ou

challengeraisedtoSection33BoftheRepresentationofthePeopleAct.The
ApexCourtwasconsideringthedisclosureofinformationbyacandidateunder
Section33AofthesaidActinthecontextoftherighttoprivacywhichis
protectedunderArticle21oftheConstitutionofIndia.Theobservationsofthe

ig
h

ApexCourtinparagraph49ofthesaidjudgmentarematerialandareforthe
sakeofreadyreferencereproducedhereinunder:

om

19

ba
y

49 ItistobestatedthattheElectionCommissionhas
fromtimetotimeissuedinstructions/orderstomeet
withthesituationwherethefieldisunoccupiedby
thelegislation.Hence,thenormsandmodalitiesto
carryoutandgiveeffecttotheaforesaiddirections
should be drawn up properly by the Election
Commission as early as possible and in any case
withintwomonths.
Inmyview,theaforesaidjudgmentscanhardlyfurtherthecaseof

the Petitioner to contend that since the Respondent No.3 being a people's

representative,hisrighttoprivacywouldnotbeaffectediftheinformation
sought by the Petitioner is disclosed. The Apex Court has made the
observationsthatithasmadehavingregardtotheamendedprovisionsofthe
Representation of People Act, and the said observations cannot be applied
whilst considering the provisions of the said Act, which is a self contained
code.

mmj

31of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

ThePetitionerhasalsosoughttoplacerelianceonthejudgmentof

rt

20

C
ou

the Apex Court in R Rajagopal's case (supra). The said judgment also
concernstherighttoprivacyunderArticle21oftheConstitutionofIndiaand
thecaseconcernsthepublicationoftheautobiographyofone AutoShankar
whowasconvictedfor6murdersandwassentencedtodeathandwhohad

ig
h

writtenhisautobiographyinjailandhashandedoverthesametohiswifewith
theknowledgeandapprovalofthejailauthoritiesforbeingdeliveredtohis
advocatewitharequesttopublishthesameinthePetitioner'smagazine.It

seems the autobiography depicted a close nexus between the prisoner and
severalIASandIPSandotherofficerssomeofwhomwereallegedtobehis

ba
y

partners in several crimes. The Petitioner had decided to commence serial


publicationoftheautobiographyandannouncedthesameintheirmagazine.
TheInspectorGeneralofPrisonswrotealettertothePetitionersallegingthat

om

the serial in question was not written by Auto Shankar and asking the
Petitionerstostoppublishingthesameforthwith.ThequestionthattheApex

Courtframedwas,doessuchanauthorisedwritinginfringesthecitizen'sright
toprivacy.TheApexCourtinParagraph26laiddownthebroadprinciplesin
sofarastherighttoprivacyisconcernedquatherighttopublish.TheApex
Courtinclause(2)ofParagraph26hasobservedthatexceptiontotherightof
privacyisthatthepublicationbecomesunobjectionableifsuchpublicationis
based upon the public records including Court records. The Apex Court

mmj

32of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

justifiedtheobservation bystatingthatonceamatterbecomesamatterof

rt

public record, the right to privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a

C
ou

legitimatesubjectforcommentbypressandmediaamongothers.Inmyview,
thesaidjudgmentdoesnotfurtherthecaseofthePetitionerinseekingthe
informationsoughtonthegroundthatnorightofprivacyoftheRespondent
No.3isaffected,infactthesaidjudgmentsupportsthecaseoftheRespondent

ig
h

No.3astheApexCourthasobservedthattherighttoprivacywouldhaveto
givewayifwhatispublishedisfrompublicrecords.Intheinstantcase,the
recordsmaintainedbytheIncomeTaxDepartmentinrespectofanindividual

whoisanassesseebeforeitcannotbesaidtobeapublicrecordasitiswell
settledthattheIncomeTaxDepartmentholdsthesaidrecordsinafiduciary

21

ba
y

capacity.

ThelearnedcounselforthePetitionerhassoughttoplacereliance

om

onthejudgmentofalearnedSingleJudgeofthisCourtreportedinthematter
11
ofKashinathJ.Shetyevs.DinshVaghela

.Inthelightofthejudgmentsof

theApexCourtinGirishRamchandraDeshpande'scasealsoR.K.Jain'scase
which judgments of the Apex Court are latter in point of time. The said
judgmentofalearnedSingleJudgeofthisCourtstandsimpliedlyoverruled.

22

TheexemptionunderSection8(1)(j)ofthesaidActhadcomeup

for consideration before the Apex Court recently in Bihar Public Service
11 2009(0)AIJMH146009

mmj

33of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

Commission'sCase(supra).TheApexCourtafterobservingthatinformation

rt

whichrelatestopersonalinformationrecordedbySection8(1)(j)ofthesaid

C
ou

Act stands exempted and can be disclosed only if the public interest so
warrants,hasthereafterheldthatthesaidexemptionisastatutoryexemption
whichmustoperateasaruleandonlyinexceptionalcases,woulddisclosure
bepermittedthattooforreasonstoberecordeddemonstratingsatisfactionto

ig
h

thetestoflargerpublicinterest.Insofarasthecompetingclaimsbetween
largerpublicinterestandtheinvasionofprivacy,theobservationsoftheApex

23 Thesatisfactionhastobearrivedatbythe
authorities objectively and the consequences of
suchdisclosurehavetobeweighedwithregardto
the circumstances of a given case. The decision
hastobebasedonobjectivesatisfactionrecorded
forensuringthatlargerpublicinterestoutweighs
unwarrantedinvasionofprivacyorotherfactors
stated in the provision. Certain matters,
particularly, in relation to appointment, are
required to be dealt with great confidentiality.
Theinformationmaycometoknowledgeofthe
authorityasaresultofdisclosurebyotherswho
give that information in confidence and with
completefaith,integrityandfidelity. Secrecyof
such information shall be maintained, thus,
briningitwithintheambitoffiduciarycapacity.
Similarly,theremaybecaseswherethedisclosure
has no relationship to any public activity or
interest or it may even cause unwarranted
invasion of privacy of the individual. On these
protections have to be given their due
implementation as they spring from statutory
exemptions. It is not a decision simpliciter
betweenprivateinterestandpublicinterest.Itis

om

ba
y

hereinunder:

Courtinparagraph23ofthesaidjudgmentarematerialandarereproduced

mmj

34of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

C
ou

a matter where a constitutional protection is


availabletoapersonwithregardtotherightto
privacy. Thus, the public interest has to be
construed while keeping in mind the balance
factor between right to privacy and right to
information with the purpose sought to be
achievedandthepurposethatwouldbeservedin
thelargerpublicinterest,particularlywhenboth
these rights emerged from the constitutional
valuesundertheConstitutionofIndia.

rt

wp875313(reserve)

ig
h

Sincetherighttoprivacyhasbeenrecognizedasafundamental
righttowhichacitizenisentitledto,therefore,unlesstheconditionmentioned
inSection8(1)(j)issatisfied,theinformationcannotbeprovided.Hencethe

burdenontheApplicantismuchmoreonerousthanmaybearoutinecase.As
indicated in the earlier part of this judgment the reason mentioned in the

ba
y

originalapplicationassupplementedbythegroundsintheFirstAppealhardly
makeoutacaseofpublicinterest.Henceintheinstantcase,thesaidburden
cannotsaidtohavebeendischargedbythePetitioner.Hencethefindingofthe

om

FirstAppellateAuthorityaswellastheCICthatthePetitionerhasnotmade
outanycasefordisclosureoftheinformationonthegroundofpublicinterest

cannotbefaultedwith.

23

The Petitioner has sought to place reliance on the proviso to

Section8(1)(j)ofthesaidActandhassoughttocontendthattheauthorities
belowhavenotconsideredtheapplicationofthePetitioneronthetouchstone
of the said Proviso. It was the submission of the learned counsel for the

mmj

35of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

PetitionerbasedonthesaidprovisothatthePetitionerwouldhavetofurnish

rt

thesaidinformationhavingregardtotheprovisoastheinformationsoughtby

C
ou

thePetitionercannotbedeniedtotheParliamentortheStateLegislature.In
supportofthesaidcontentionthePetitionerhassoughttoplacerelianceonthe
judgmentofaDivisionBenchofthisCourtinSurupSinghNaik'scase(supra).
InsofarasthesaidjudgmentoftheDivisionBenchisconcerned,towhichthis

ig
h

Courtwasaparty,nodoubtinthesaidjudgmentprovisotoSection8(1)(j)
was in contention and the Division Bench of this Court had allowed the
application filed by the Petitioner seeking information relating to the

hospitalizationofthePetitionerSurupSinghNaikwhichwasdeniedbythe
authorities below. However, the proviso was applied in the facts that were

ba
y

prevailinginthesaidcase.ThefactsinthesaidcasewasthatthePetitioner
SurupSinghNaikwasaMinisterintheStateGovernmentattherelevanttime
whowaspunishedforcontemptofcourtbytheApexCourtbyjudgmentdated

om

10052006andwastoundergoimprisonmentforonemonth. Itseemsthat
thePetitionersurrenderedtothepoliceinMumbaion12052006.On1405

2006thePetitionerwasshiftedtooneoftheGovernmentHospitalsi.e.theSir
JJHospitalonaccountofsuspectedheartproblemaswellaslowsugarand
bloodpressure.TheRespondentNo.5inthesaidPetitionwhowasaprivate
citizenhadbyhisapplicationdated27052006soughtinformationfromthe
CPIOofthesaidSirJJHospitalofthemedicalreportsofthePetitioner.Inhis
applicationitwassetoutthatitwasinpublicinteresttoknowaboutwhya

mmj

36of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

convictisallowedtostayintheairconditionedcomfortofthehospitaland

rt

therehadbeenintensivequestioningaboutthisaspectinthemediaandthe

C
ou

peoplesmind,andthatthereis,therefore,alegitimatedoubtaboutthetrue
reasonsfortheconvictbeingaccommodatedinairconditionedcomfortofthe
hospital.TheCPIOdidnotfurnishthenecessaryinformation.TheRespondent
No.5thereafterfiledanAppealbeforetheRespondentNo.3whichalsodidnot

ig
h

meetwithanysuccess. TheRespondentNo.5thereforepreferredaSecond
Appeal before the Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 i.e. Second
Appellate Authority allowed the Appeal and directed the information to be

provided to the Respondent No.5 which order was challenged before the
Division Benchof thisCourtbywayofthe saidWritPetition.TheDivision

ba
y

Benchcrystallizedthequestionthatitwasrequiredtoanswernamelytheright
ofanindividualtokeepcertainmattersconfidentialontheonehandandright
ofthepublictobeinformedontheotherconsideringtheprovisionsofthesaid

om

Act.TheDivisionBenchobservedthatitwasconcernedwithacasewherea
personconvictedforcontemptofcourt,doessuchapersonduringtheperiod

of incarceration, claim privilege or confidentially in respect of the medical


recordsmaintainedbyapublicauthority. TheDivisionBenchconsideredthe
issue on the touchstone of the proviso and recorded a finding that such
informationnormallycannotbedeniedtoParliamentortheStateLegislature
unlessthepersonwhoopposesthereleaseoftheinformationmakesoutacase
thatsuchinformationisnotavailabletoParliamentortheStateLegislation

mmj

37of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

undertheAct.TheDivisionBenchwentontoobservethathavingregardto

rt

theplenarypowerswhichthelegislatureenjoys,suchinformationcannotbe

C
ou

deniedtoParliamentorStatelegislaturebyanypublicauthority.TheDivision
Bench concluded that the records of the institution i.e. Sir J J Group of
Hospitals,therefore,,oughttobemadeavailabletoParliamentortheState
Legislature.TheParliament/Legislatureand/oritsCommitteesareentitledto

ig
h

therecordseveniftheybeconfidentialorpersonalrecordsofapatient.Hence
thejudgmentoftheDivisionBenchofthisCourtwasrevolvingaroundthe
factsinthesaidcase,whereaMinisterinOfficewaspunishedforContemptof

Court and was admitted to a Government Hospital and was being treated
therein and the suspicion was that he had got himself admitted to avoid

ba
y

incarceration. Thesaidjudgment,inmyview,cannotbeextendedtomean
thatanyandeveryinformationistobeprovidedtotheParliamentortheState
Legislature.ThishastobeviewedinthecontextofthefactsofSurupSingh

om

Naik'scase(supra)whereintheDivisionBenchofthisCourtwasoftheview
thattheinformationrelatingtothepatientSurupSinghNaikcouldnothave

beendeniedtotheParliamentorStateLegislature.Inmyview,therefore,the
judgmentoftheDivisionBenchofthisCourtdoesnotinanymannerfurther
thecaseofthePetitionerbasedontheprovisotoSection8(1)(j)ofthesaid
Act.

24

mmj

TheprovisotoSection8(1)(j)hadalsocomeupforconsideration

38of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

beforeaLearnedSingleJudgeoftheDelhiHighCourtinVijayPrakash'scase

rt

(supra). Before The Learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court the

C
ou

JudgmentoftheDivisionBenchofthisCourtwascited.TheLearnedSingle
JudgeobservedthatheisunpersuadedbythereasoningofthisCourtwhich
appearstohavegivenundue,evenoverwhelmingdeferencetoParliamentary
privilege.TheLearnedSingleJudgeobservedthatwerethatthetrueposition,

ig
h

theenactmentofSection8(1)(j)woulditselfberenderedmeaninglessandthe
basic safeguard bereft of content. The Learned Judge concluded that if the
provisoistobeinterpretedinamannerthattheParliamenthastherightto

demand any information then there would be nothing left to the right to
privacywhichhasbeenelevatedtothestatusofafundamentalrightbyseveral

25

ba
y

judgmentsoftheSupremeCourt.

In my view therefore, the proviso cannot be sought to be

om

interpretedinthemannerwhichtheLearnedCounselforthePetitionerseeks
todo. Thereisalsoabasicfallacyinthecontentionraisedonbehalfofthe

Petitioner. The Petitioner wants to proceed on the hypothesis that the


informationsoughtbyhimcannotbedeniedtotheParliament.Insofarasthe
Parliamentisconcerned,theParliamenthasitsownrulesofbusinessandit
thereforecannotbepresumedthattheinformationinrespectoftheIncome
TaxReturnsofaMemberofLegislature wouldbesought.Thesame would
undoubtedly be in the discretion of the Honourable Speaker. In the said

mmj

39of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

wp875313(reserve)

context,itisalsorelevanttorefertoSection75AoftheRepresentationofthe

rt

PeopleActunderwhicheveryelectedcandidateforaHouseofParliamenthas

C
ou

tofurnishinformation relatingtothe movable andimmovableproperty,his


liabilities to any public financial institution, his liabilities to the Central
GovernmentortheStateGovernmenttotheChairmanoftheCouncilofStates
ortheSpeakeroftheHouseofthePeoplei.e.LoksabhaortheChairmanofthe

ig
h

CounciloftheStatei.e.Rajyasabha.Hencethereareadequateprovisionsinthe
RepresentationofthePeopleActunderwhichtheinformationsoughtistobe
providedtotheParliamenttotheextentmentionedinthesaidprovisionsand

therefore reliance cannot be placed on the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) to

26

ba
y

contendthattheexemptionprovidedinthesaidSectionwouldnotoperate.

Forthereasonsaforestatedtheimpugnedorderdated1552013

passedbytheCentralInformationCommissioner,confirmingtheorderspassed

om

by the First Appellate Authority and the CPIO does not suffer from any
illegalityorinfirmityforthiscourttointerfereinitsWritJurisdiction.TheWrit

Petition isaccordinglydismissed.Rule dischargedwithpartiesto bear their


respectivecosts.

mmj

[R.M.SAVANT,J]

40of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen