View Full Version : Non supply of RTRI documents under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI act

20-07-2013, 08:53 PM
I have sent RTI application on 17.06.13 to my Central office seeking copy of certain parts of the noting portion of the file pertaining to the Disciplinary case initiated against me on 1.12.2009 and culminated on 13.5.2013 imposed with minor penalty and appeal is pending for disposal before Appellate authority. The said CPIO of central office has rejected my RTI application and furnished that the said papers relate to my personal information and disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or any public interest; and there exists no necessity and/or no obligation to provide such papers to an RTI applicant since such category of documents stand exempted under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI act.
- I may kindly be clarified whether is it a wrong interpretation by said CPIO?
- Is there any rule favours me to obtain said documents?
Note: The same office has sent noting for APAR related RTI information just five months back.

The reply in this regard is highly solicited.


22-07-2013, 11:03 PM
Refer following judgment of CIC on Section 8 (1) (j) available at (http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_WB_C_2006_00223,CIC_WB_A_2006_00469,_00394,CIC _OK_A_2006_00266,_00058,_00066,_00315_M_55430.pdf)

"...This Section has to be read as a whole. If that were done, it would be
apparent that that “personal information” does not mean information relating to
the information seeker, but about a third party. That is why, in the Section, it is
stated “unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual”. If one were to
seek information about himself or his own case, the question of invasion of
privacy of his own self does not arise. If one were to ask information about a third
party and if it were to invade the privacy of the individual, the information
seeker can be denied the information on the ground that disclosure would
invade the privacy of a third party. Therefore, when a citizen seeks information
about his own case and as long as the information sought is not exempt in terms
of other provisions of Section 8 of RTI Act, this Section cannot be applied to
deny the information".


Tamil Nenjan
03-09-2013, 07:19 AM
Dear Mr Rajadurai,

As per the recent ruling of CIC (based on the Court Verdict), the information pertains to the action to be taken in the service matters are covered under the definition of Personal Information which is not to be disclosed unles larger Public Interest in waranted. If you desires to get such information please prove that the Public Interest invovement with the disclosure.

Regarding APAR & other on its own information it will not covered under confidential as long as it is not protected under Section 8 of RTI Act.

Gopal Krishan
10-09-2013, 11:53 AM
Could you kindly give details of the ruling of the CIC and the Court verdict?
Gopal Krishan

Tamil Nenjan
12-09-2013, 06:05 AM
Dear Mr Gopal Krishan.... a relevant portion of the text from CIC decision is re produced:

a. P Kannan Vs AsstCommissioner, Port Blair.

... As decided by the Supreme Court in the SLP No. 27734 of 2012 (Girish RDeshpande vs CIC & others), the details regarding the disciplinary actionagainst any government employee are qualified to be personal information asdefined in clause (j) of section 8(1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act andshould not be ordinarily disclosed. However, in the present case, all theofficials about when the Appellant has sought the information are field levelrevenue officials and their conduct has considerable implications for thepeople living in their respective jurisdiction. Therefore, if there are complaintsagainst these people and the authorities have initiated enquiries into thosecomplaints, it would be in larger public interest, if this information isdisclosed.

6. Keeping the above facts in view, we direct the CPIO to write to theAppellant within 10 working days of receiving this order and to inform himabout the nature of the complaint against each one of these officials andstatus of the disciplinary action, if any, presently under way...

CIC/SM/A/2013/000143 Dated 25-06-2013
The full text of Supreme Court Ruling can be seen in the link: