Case
title : R. K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr.
Case
No. : Civil Appeal No. ____of 2013 (arising out of SLP (C)
No.22609 of 2012)
Decided
on : 16.04.2013
In this
case the court below held that “the information sought by the appellant herein
is the third party information wherein third party may plead a privacy defence
and the proper question would be as to whether divulging of such an information
is in the public interest or not.” The matter was remitted back to Chief Information Commissioner to consider
the issue after following the procedure under Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005
The
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
In
view of the discussion made in this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v.
Central Information Commissioner and others reported in (2013) 1 SCC 212, as
the appellant sought for inspection of documents relating to the
ACR of the Member, CESTAT, inter alia, relating to adverse entries in the ACR
and the ‘follow up action’ taken therein
on the question of integrity, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment.
In
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner and others
(2013) 1 SCC 212, the Court held that:
The
performance of an employee/officer in an organisation 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
or 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.