Personal information having no relation to any public activity, public interest cannot be disclosed under RTI Act

In the matter of Har Kishan vs President Secretariat & Anr. (LPA 90/2021) decided on 26.07.2021 in the Delhi High Court.

FACTS: The plea was filed by one Har Kishan, who was seeking information with regard to appointments made for the Multi-tasking Staff of the Presidential Estate, Rashtrapati Bhawan. The applicant had sought residential address and fathers’ names of all selected candidates who had been appointed for the said post. The information with respect to the notification [of MTS (Multi-Tasking Staff) examination], total number of candidates who appeared in the said examination etc was provided to the petitioner, however, information relating to residential address, and father’s names of all selected candidates was refused by the CIC. The Ld. Single Judge had observed that whenever ‘Personal Information’ is sought under the ‘Right To Information Act, 2005’, the disclosure of applicant’s interest in the information being sought would be necessary to establish his/her bonafides. The appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the order of the Ld. Single Judge.

HELD: Being in full agreement of Ld. Single Judge, the Division Bench held that that any personal information having no relation with any public activity or public interest cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information Act like the information sought by the Appellant. The Court also said that disclosure of such information can cause an unwarranted invasion into one’s privacy.

Further, it was observed by the Division Bench that disclosure of any such information is subject to Section 8 of the RTI Act which provides for exemption from disclosure of information. The said provision states that 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 is exempted 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.