Obligation not to disclose information under 8(1)(e ) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005
(A) Exemption of information n under Section 8(1)(e) ) and under
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Section 8(1)(e) states, Section 8(e) Notwithstanding anything in this
Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,–(e) information
available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent
authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure
of such information;
8(1)(e) of the RTI Act , information held in ”fiduciary
relationship or “ fiduciary capacity”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case
of CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011) )[Arising
out of SLP [C] 7526 /2009 Decide on 09 August 2011] Decided on August 09,
2011.
in which Hon’ble Court has examined the matter in detail
and held as under:-
The term `fiduciary’ refers to a
person having a duty to act for the benefit of another, showing good faith and
condor where such other person reposes trust and special confidence in
the person owing or discharging the duty. The term `fiduciary relationship’ is
used to describe a situation or transaction where one person
(beneficiary) places complete confidence in another person (fiduciary) in
regard to his affairs, business or transaction/s. The term also refers to a
person who holds a thing in trust for another (beneficiary). The fiduciary is
expected to act in confidence .and for the benefits and advantage
of the beneficiary, and use good faith and fairness in dealing with
the beneficiary or the things belonging to the beneficiary. If the beneficiary
has entrusted anything to the fiduciary, to hold the thing in trust or to
execute certain acts in regard to or with reference to
the entrusted thing, the fiduciary has to act in confidence and expected not
to disclose the thing or information to any third party
notings, advices or opinions of higher authorities, internal legal notes,
advice, comments and written views / marginal notes of higher authorities
in file, are all acts in confidence which are “privileged documents’ and
cannot be disclosed under Section 123, 124 & 129 of the
Indian Evidence Act which are reproduced as follows:-
Evidence as to affairs of State,– No one shall be permitted to give any
evidence derived from unpublished official records relating to any affairs of
State, except with the permission of the officer at the head of the department
concerned, who shall give or withhold such permission as he thinks fit”.
Official communication, – No public officer shall be compelled to
disclose communications made to him in official confidence, when he
considers that the public interests would suffer by the disclosure.”
Evidence Act, 1872 states, “129. Confidential communication with
legal advisor,– No one shall be compelled to disclose to the Court any
confidential communication which has taken place between him and his legal
professional adviser, unless he offers himself as a witness, in which case he
may be compelled to disclose any such communications as may appear to the Court
necessary to be known in order to explain any evidence which he has given, but
no others”.
Further, copies of file notes and notings, internal legal notes/written
view and all the legal opinions in respect of the said land; copies of
correspondences in relation to the said land, exchanged between AAI and RCC,
etc., as sought by the appellant are non-disclosable u/s 124 & 129 of the
Evidence Act, 1882. Sections 124 and 129 of the Indian Evidence Act read as
follows:
124. Official communications – No public officer shall be compelled to
disclose communications made to him in official confidence, when he considers
that the public interests would suffer by the disclosure.
129. Confidential communication with Legal Advisers – No one shall be
compelled to disclose to the Court any confidential communication which has
taken place between him and his legal professional adviser, unless he offers
himself as a witness in which case he may be compelled to disclose any such
communication as may appear to the Court necessary to be known in order to
explain any evidence which he has given, but not others.
Citing the Full Bench of this Commission, vide order dated
27.07.2009, in the case of Shri Milap Choraria Vs. Central Board of Direct
Taxes, Department of Revenue Complaint No.CIC/AT/C/2008/00025) had upheld that
Section 22 of the RTI Act, 2005, did not override the provisions of the
provisions of Section 124 and 129 of the Evidence Act, 1882, which read
as under:
“21. Similar is the relationship between Section 124 of the Indian
Evidence Act and the RTI Act. A public officer cannot be compelled to disclose
communication made to him in official confidence when he considers that it
would jeopardize public interest. The disclosure of any such information, which
is a part of official confidence, is therefore, permissible only when larger
public interest commands it. Read in this context, there is no inconsistency
between the RTI Act and Section 124 of the Evidence Act. The only issue
that needs be decided is whether it would be in larger public interest if the
information requested by the appellant is disclosed.
27. There may be circumstances, however, where, as in Section 8(1)(j) of
the RTI Act, a personal information can be held to be non- disclosable unless
warranted by public interest. If such personal information is also held
confidential under any Section of the Indian Evidence Act on grounds of public
interest, there shall be perfect compatibility / harmony between that
withholding of the information or any order to withhold the information under
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.”
confidential official communications/information which is well protected under
of the RTI Act, 2005 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the appellant
has been unable to substantiate any public interest that would commend
superseding the protected interest in the matter of disclosure of the requested
information. The appeal is disposed of.
Section 8(1)(j) states, Section 8(1) Notwithstanding anything in this
Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,– (j) information which
relates to personal information the disclosure of which 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 Information Officer or
the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case
may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure
of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament
or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
Cen.Information Commr.& Ors. Case No. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No
27734 of 2012, (& CC 14781), Decided on 3 October, 2012 has held:
“12. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause
notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his
employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the
details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other
financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts
stated to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends
and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for
finds a place in the income tax returns of the third respondent. The question
that has come up for consideration is whether the above-mentioned information
sought for qualifies to be “personal information” as defined in clause (j) of
Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the
third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are
qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1)
of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is
primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those
aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression
“personal information”, the disclosure of which has no relationship to 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 Central Public Information Officer or the State Public
Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger
public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate
orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a
matter of right.
“personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of
Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the
Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or
the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies
the disclosure of such information.
interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause
unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the
RTI Act.
in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public
interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special
leave petition. Hence, the same is dismissed”.
[ Case Reference: –
1. . Supreme Court of India decision in CBSE Vs. Aditya
Bandopadhyay (Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011)[Arising out of SLP [C]
7526 /2009 Decide on 09 August 2011].
2.. CIC decision in Second Appeal No.
CIC/AAOIN/A/2017/309776/MP: Appellant : Shri Snehasish Mukherjee, New
Delhi – Vs. Airport Authority of India, New Delhi, Public Authority
Date of Decision: September 18, 2017 … cic.gov.in]
3. CIC Full Bench decision, in Complaint No.CIC/AT/C/2008/00025),
decided on dated 27.07.2009, in the case of Shri Milap Choraria Vs. Central
Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue.
4. Supreme Court of India in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs
Cen.Information Commr.& Ors. Case No. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No
27734 of 2012, (& CC 14781), Decided on 3 October, 2012
