Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

Union of India Ministry of Railways v. Kishan Lal Meena - (High Court of Delhi) (08 Nov 2016)

Reasoning or rationing must be accorded by CIC while ordering disclosure of any information

MANU/DE/3003/2016

Right to Information

Petitioner seeks quashing of order passed by Central Information Commission allowing appeal of Respondent and directing Petitioner to provide information sought for by Respondent. Petitioner by his application filed under Right to Information Act, 2005 had sought for information being copies of files pertaining to investigation against Senior DME, Ajmer. Provision of said information was declined on ground that same was exempted under Section 8(1)(g) and (j) of Act being personal information and there being no public interest involved. On an appeal by Respondent, first Appellate Authority upheld decision of CPIO and held that, information was exempted from being disclosed. Central Information Commission directed Petitioner to provide information to Respondent.

Perusal of the impugned order shows that, CIC has merely recorded contentions of Appellant as well as Respondent and has passed a one line order. Central Information Commission has not returned any finding as the infirmity in orders of CPIO and first appellate authority. CIC has not recorded any finding as to how information, sought for by the respondent, is not exempted under Section 8 of Act. There is no reasoning given by Central Information Commission in order as to the errors committed by CPIO as well as First Appellate Authority.

Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors.: (2013) 1 SCC 212, has held that, performance of an employee/officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between employee and employer and would normally be governed by service rules which fall under the expression ‘personal information’. Disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. Supreme Court has also held that, disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Supreme Court has, however, noted that, in a given case, if CPIO or State Public Information Officer or Appellate Authority is satisfied that, larger public interest justifies disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed.

In present case, there is no finding returned by Central Information Commission that there is a larger public interest which justices disclosure of information, in fact, there is no reasoning or rationing accorded in impugned order except to direct Petitioner to furnish information. Impugned order, was not sustainable, same was, accordingly quashed.

Relevant : Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors.: (2013) 1 SCC 212, Section 8 of Right to Information Act, 2005

Tags : INFORMATION   DISCLOSURE   DIRECTIONS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved