Disclosure of Personal Information is exempted under RTI Act

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 17.08.2020 Pronounced on: 31.08.2020 LPA 207 2020 DR. R. S. GUPTA .....Appellant Through: Appellant in person. Through: Mr.Gautam Narayan ASC GNCTD) with Ms.Dacchita Shahi Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr.Parvinder Chauhan Mr.Nitin Jain Advocates for respondent No.9. GOVT. OF NCTD & ORS. .....Respondents HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA J U D G E M E N T SANJEEV NARULA J. 1. The present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the final judgment and order dated 12th May 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 8352 2018 whereby appellant’s writ petition impugning the order passed by respondent No.3 declining to furnish the requested information under the Delhi Right to Information Act 2001has been rejected. LPA 207 2020 2. Brief factual matrix leading to the filing of the present appeal is that the appellant filed an application under DRTI Act 2001 before respondent No.5 and respondent No.6 Mrs. Ranjana Daswal Additional Spl. Director seeking information pertaining to Geeta Senior Secondary School No.2 Sultanpuri Delhi. Appellant sought attendance record pertaining to himself for the period from April 2015 to March 2017 and also of the rest of the staff members serving in the same school. The copy of the attendance register pertaining to the appellant was provided to him however at the same time information concerning the other staff members was declined on the ground that information requested was exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act 2005. Aggrieved with the response received appellant filed an appeal under Section 7 of DRTI Act before Public Grievance Commissionthe designated appellate authority under the Act. 3. In the appeal proceeding the Deputy Director of Education Zone XII filed reply and furnished a copy thereof to the appellant wherein inter alia it was stated as under: “1. That for para 1 copy of attendance pertaining to the Appellantw.e.f April 2015 to March 2017 has already been provided to the Appellant on 5 05 2017 on depositing Rs. 120 cannot be provided as it is the third party information and comes under section 8 (J) of RTI ACT as there is no LPA 207 2020 large public interest was involved for which this information was being sought.” Vide order dated 4th September 2017 respondent No.6 was directed to confirm whether attendance record is submitted along with the monthly salary bills received from aided school for the release of salary through ECSDirectorate of Education is directed to clarify whether as per the Act and Rules or under any other order of the Directorate it is mandatory for the aided schools to submit copy of attendance register every month to the Education Department. Competent Authority shall further clarify what documents are required to be submitted by the aided schools authorities for release of salary to the staff members. The clarification should be submitted to the Appellate Authority Chairman before the next date of hearing. 4.2 A senior officer well conversant with the facts of the case must be deputed on the next date of hearing. The next date of hearing in this appeal case is scheduled for Monday 11th December 2017 at 11:00 A.M.” 5. On 9th February 2018 Deputy Director of Education Zone XII submitted a reply to the following effect: “OFFICE OF THE DY. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION ZONE XII DISTT.NWQ BLOCK MANGOLPURI DELHI 110083. No.: Zone XII 74 Date: 09 02 2018 To The Appellate Authority Chairman Public Grievance Commission LPA 207 2020 Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Subject: Reply Appeal No. 247 2017 PGC DRTI Edn Dr. R. S. Gupta. Sir 247 2017 PGC DRTI Edn. as cited in the subject above. In this connection the school authorities has submitted their reply on 16 11 2017 Ref. No. Geeta. 2 2017 18 461(Copy As per order No. F. DE 15 ACT POLICY 2008 6718 6741 dated 05 09 2008under section 10of Delhi School Education Act 1973 specifies that "the Managing Committee of every aided school shall deposit every month its share towards pay and allowances medical facilities pension. Gratuity provident fund and other prescribed benefits with the Administrator shall disburse or cause to be disbursed with the last week of every month the salary and allowances to the employees of aided schools" and whereas this power of the Administrator has been delegated to the Director of Education and whereas an undertaking has been given by the Department before the Hon ble supreme Court in the matter of Environmental &Consumer Protection Foundation vs. Delhi Administration &Ors. Therefore it is hereby ordered to disburse the salary to the employees of Aided Schools under the Directorate of Education through Electronic Clearance System from the month of September 2008 onwards. Thus as per the order No. F. DE 15ACT POLICY 2008 6718 6741 dated 05 09 2008forwarding of the copy of attendance register of the staff school concerned need not be send alongwith the monthly salary bills to the Department. The following documents are being attached with the salary bills every month as per the information received from the school concerned. 1. Salary FormNyaya Khand 2 Indira Puram Ghaziabad U.P. 201014 Directorate of Education Old Secretariat Delhi 110054 Competent Authority Additional Director of EducationAppeal No. Application Filed on Response of Competent Authority No response received Appeal Filed on 20 07 2017 First hearing in PGC 04 09 2017 1. Brief facts of the Appeal Dr. RS. Gupta filed Form A during May 2017 under the Delhi RTI Act 2001 with the Competent Authority i.e. Additional Director of Education Directorate of Education seeking information on total 3 counts. LPA 207 2020 Dr. RS. Gupta did not receive a response from the office of Additional Director of Education Directorate of Education hence he filed an Appeal during July 2017 before the Appellate Authority PGC under Section 7 of Delhi Right to Information Act. 2001. 2. Proceedings in the Public Grievance Commission The Public Grievance Commission has so far convened two hearings on 4th September 2017 and 12th February 2018. At today s hearing on 12 02 2018 the attendance was as follows: Sh. Bharat Bhushan Gupta DDE Dte. of Relevant facts emerging during the hearing 3. 1 At the last hearing held on 04 09 2017 directions given by the PGC were as follows: Competent Authority i.e. Additional DirectorDirectorate of Education is directed to clarify whether as per the Act and Rules or under any other order of the Directorate it is mandatory for the aided schools to submit copy of attendance register every month to the Education Department. Competent Authority shall further clarify what documents are required to be submitted by the aided school authorities for release of salary to the staff members. The the Appellate Authority Chairman before the next date of hearing. A senior officer well conversant with the facts of the case must be deputed on the next date of hearing". should be 3.2 At today s hearing on 12 02 2018 Sh. Bharat Bhushan Gupta DDEDirectorate of Education submitted a reply dated 09.02.2018 before the next Appellate Authorityfurther informed that as per the order No.F.DE15 ACT POLICY 2008 6718 6741 dated 05 09 2008 issued by the Director copy of attendance register of the school staff concerned need not be sent alongwith the monthly salary bills to the Department. He has also mentioned the documents which are attached with the salary bills each month by the school. 4. Directions of the Appellate Authority PGC. 4.1 On perusal of the reply it is observed that the department has provided satisfactory reply to the clarification sought by the Appellate Authority PGC on the last date of hearing. With the above directions observations the present appeal case is ordered to be disposed of before the Appellate Authority MemberAPPELLATE AUTHORITY MEMBER7. The appellant was still unsatisfied and impugned the order by filing a writ petition before this court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the same noting that the appellant had received his personal information and that there was no infirmity in the order refusing to furnish information pertaining to other staff members of the school. The learned Single Judge also noted that in view of section 22 of the RTI Act Section 8(1)(j) and the principles stated in the said section would apply to the facts of this case. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under: “10. It is clear from a perusal of the RTI application filed by the petitioner that he was seeking the complete copies of the school staff attendance registers. This has been rightly refused as the information pertains to private information of other employees and would tantamount to invasion of the Right to Privacy. The petitioner has LPA 207 2020 received his personal information. Accordingly in my opinion there is no infirmity in the impugned order to warrant any interference by this court. 11. It is also quite clear that under section 22 of the RTI Act the provisions of the said Act would have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of law other than the Act. Section 22 of the RTI Act reads as follows: 22. Act to have overriding effect. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act 1923 and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this 12. Keeping in view the said provisions and section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act the principles stated in the said section would apply to the facts of this case. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act reads as follows: information which 8. Exemption from disclosure of information.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act there shall be no obligation to give any citizen to personal 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: LPA 207 2020 Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person." 13. Clearly giving personal information to the petitioner of other employees would be an invasion of the privacy of the individual. There is no larger public interest involved to warrant taking a different view. 14. Another plea raised by the petitioner was that some of the schools have in response to separate RTI applications confirmed that attendance record of the staff is sent to respondents No.5 and 6. Merely because some of the schools in response to the RTI Application sent by the petitioner have mentioned that they are sending the attendance sheet to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi cannot be a ground to give copies of the said attendance sheet to the petitioner. This plea of the petitioner is misplaced. 15. As far as the plea of the petitioner that the hearing was not given by the concerned functionary respondents No.2 and 3 in their counter affidavit which is sworn by the Deputy Secretary Public Grievance Commission Govt. of NCT of Delhi clearly states that the hearing was given by respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 has signed the order and dated it as 21.3.2018. I see no reason to disbelieve the said averment of respondentNo.2 and respondent No.3. This plea is rejected. 16. Even otherwise as noted above there is no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. 17. There is no merit in the petition. Petition is accordingly dismissed.” 8. The appellant who appeared in person before us assailed the order of the learned Single Judge by urging that the information sought by the appellant cannot be refused. He raised two fold submission. Firstly he LPA 207 2020 submits that the authority deciding the appeal was not empowered and authorized to do so. He argued that on 12th February 2018 as well as on 21st March 2018 there was no inherent power with respondent No.3 to act as the Appellate Authority. The specific authorization issued in this behalf being letter dated 20th March 2018 was received by the department only on 22nd March 2018. Till such time the authorization was received the officer could not discharge the role and function of Appellate Authority. Secondly he argues that respondent No.8 in the writ petition had submitted false information to PGC on 12th February 2018 without approval of the competent authority. He argues that the reply placed on record is absurd and did not in any manner justify the stand taken in the said communication so as to deny the information to the appellant. Lastly the appellant asserts that the information pertaining to himself has also not been supplied. 9. Mr. Gautam Narayan learned ASC on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mr. Parvinder Chauhan learned Counsel on behalf of the school who appeared on advance notice submitted that the information sought by the appellant cannot be furnished as the same is specifically covered under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Without prejudice Mr. Narayan submits that although personal information pertaining to the appellant has been furnished to him as recorded in the impugned order yet in order to put the controversy at rest he has no objection to provide the same once again if the court were to issue such a direction. Learned ASC further submitted that it was not mandatory for aided schools to submit the copy of the attendance register every month to the Education LPA 207 2020 Department for the release of the salary to the staff members. He explained that now disbursal is done through the ECS system and therefore furnishing of attendance register alongwith monthly bills is not a requirement. He further argued that such information is kept by the school and not forwarded to the Education Department. With respect to the competence of the appellate authority he clarified that respondent No.3 was authorized to hear the appeal under the RTI Act as an ‘appellate authority’. He also pointed out that vide notification dated 12th December 2017 respondent No.3 had been appointed as a Whole Time Member of the Public Grievance Commission and could therefore authoritatively and legally discharge the functions of the Appellate Authority. Therefore as on the date of the hearing as well as deciding the appeal he was fully competent and had the jurisdiction to pass the order. Later vide order dated 20th March 2018 he was appointed as the Head of the Department for the Commission as the post of the Chairman was vacant at that time. This appointment is being misconstrued by the appellant as the authorization to act as the appellate authority. 10. We have given due consideration to the submissions advanced by the parties and have carefully perused the record. Under section 7 of the DRTI Act any person aggrieved by an order of the competent authority or any person who has not received any order from the competent authority within thirty working days may appeal to the Public Grievances Commission. The organizational structure of the Commission comprises of the chairman and members. The appeal was LPA 207 2020 decided by the Commission through Respondent No.3 who was its member. Except for making a bald assertion the appellant is unable to demonstrate as to how respondent No.3 who was member of the Public Grievance Commission could not act as the Appellate Authority. The fact that respondent No.3 was declared as the Head of the Department for the Commission vide order dated 20th March 2018 does not mean that authority to discharge the functions of the Appellate Authority stood conferred only from the said date by virtue of such appointment. Therefore there is no merit in the contention of the appellant that the order dated 20th March 2018 has been passed by an authority not competent to decide the appeal. We also do not find any merit in the contention of the appellant that the stand of the DOE before the Appellate Authority is not supported by the Policy document dated 05.09.2008 relied upon by them. The Department of Education has categorically stated on record that from 2008 onwards salary to employees of aided schools is disbursed through the ECS and therefore it is not necessary to send a copy of the attendance register along with salary bills for such disbursal. We therefore fail to understand how Department of Education can be compelled to furnish the information that is not available in the records not maintained by them at least from September 2008 onwards. Further the appellant is seeking attendance record of the other staff members of the Geeta Senior Secondary School No.2 Sultanpuri Delhi. Since information requested relates to attendance record it would entail revealing medical and personal information of an individual. The attendance record is part of service record which is a matter between LPA 207 2020 the employee and the employer and ordinarily these aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”. The disclosure of this information ex facie has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and pertinently the appellant is not able to explain or show any nexus between the personal information sought and the public interest involved for seeking its disclosure. Thus in our view in absence of even a remote connection with any larger public interest disclosure of information would be exempted as the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual under section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Petitioner has thus failed to establish that the information sought for is for any public interest much less ‘larger public interest’. Therefore we are not inclined to entertain this appeal. 11. Before parting we may add that Appellant has argued that several Aided schools have stated that they are enclosing their monthly record of staff attendance register with their salary bills and hence it is not the third party information. We are not inclined to accept this contention in view of the categorical stand taken by the DOE. If some schools are volunteering their information to DOE it does not mean that information qua the employees of the school in question does not pertain to a third party. Lastly as is borne out from documents placed on record and as observed by the Learned Single Judge we have no reason to accept Appellant’s contention that he is not in receipt of information relating to his personal record. Nevertheless since Mr. Narayan without prejudice has agreed to furnish the same we direct LPA 207 2020 accordingly. Let the information pertaining to appellant’s personal attendance record that was provided earlier be furnished to him once again within 3 weeks from today. The appeal is dismissed with the above directions. SANJEEV NARULA J MANMOHAN J AUGUST 31 2020 LPA 207 2020 

Summary: The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Dr. RS Gupta V. GNTCD [LPA 207/2020], held that absence of any larger public interest, disclosure of personal information is exempted under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, as the same will be unwarranted invasion of privacy under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act . 
The division bench of Hon’ble Justices Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula observed that, “The attendance record is part of service record which is a matter between the employee and the employer and ordinarily these aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”. The disclosure of this information ex-facie has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and pertinently, the appellant is not able to explain or show any nexus between the personal information sought and the public interest involved, for seeking its disclosure.”
The Hon’ble Court noted that the information which was sought by the appellant with regards to other employees contained medical and personal information of the individuals which has no relationship with any public activity or public interest.
The appellant in the present case had filed an RTI application with the Director of Education, Delhi seeking information pertaining to a School regarding his attendance record along with the rest of the staff members, the copy of attendance record of appellant was provided but the record of other staff member was declined pursuant to S. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Hon’ble court observed that it was not necessary for schools to send a copy of the attendance register of employees to the Department of Education and the department could not be compelled to furnish the information that is not available in the records not maintained by them. It was further observed that “Thus, in our view, in absence of even a remote connection with any larger public interest, disclosure of information would be exempted as the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. Petitioner has thus failed to establish that the information sought for is for any public interest, much less ‘larger public interest’.”
Click here to Read Judgement
 The division bench of Hon’ble Justices Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula observed that, “The attendance record is part of service record which is a matter between the employee and the employer and ordinarily these aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”. The disclosure of this information ex-facie has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and pertinently, the appellant is not able to explain or show any nexus between the personal information sought and the public interest involved, for seeking its disclosure.” The Hon’ble Court noted that the information which was sought by the appellant with regards to other employees contained medical and personal information of the individuals which has no relationship with any public activity or public interest.