The Gujarat High Court has ruled that details regarding remuneration of High Court Judges cannot be sought under Right to Information Act.
The single-judge bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav in this view set aside State Information Commission's order directing disclosure of the salary and allowances of a former Additional Judge of the Gujarat High Court under the RTI Act.
The respondent had been denied the answer by the Public Information Officer who invoked provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and statedd that it was personal information having no relationship with any public activity.
Aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal which came to be dismissed as well. He then approached Gujarat Information Commission and the Information Commission with a second appeal, in which the impugned order allowing him to seek the details under RTI Act came to be passed.
The Commission opined that such information should be given under Section 4(1)(b)(x) of the RTI Act. This has been challenged by the High Court administration.
The Counsel has submitted that Section 4(1)(b)(x) of the RTI Act deals with monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees and pay and allowances of the Judges of the High Court cannot be branded as of one being of the officers and employees and therefore a direction of the Commission is misconceived.
Reliance was placed on Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Cen. Information Commr. & Ors., 2012 Latest Caselaw 560 SC to submit that even when admittedly the case fell within the parameters of Section 4 of the RTI Act, the information sought for with regard to details of salary in respect of one employee which was refused by the Information Commission as is evident from the order of the Commission quoted in para 4 of the judgement of the Apex Court, relying on clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act where only copies of the posting orders were directed to be supplied and which was a subject matter of challenge by the applicant seeking information, the Apex Court held that such information was exempted from being disclosed.
Reliance was also placed on CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL 2019 Latest Caselaw 1095 SC
The Court at the outset noted that the petitioner has sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son.
It thus formed the question for analysis as to whether such information qualifies to be 'personal information” as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act or not.
The Court came to agree with the CIC with the CIC and the other courts that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1)of the RTI Act.
"The performance of an employee/officer in an organization 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 of 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," the Court ruled.
The impugned order was accordingly set-aside.
CASE TITLE: HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT Versus CHANDRAVADAN DHRUV & 1 other(s)
CASE DETAILS: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20139 of 2017
CORAM: Justice Biren Vaishnav
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments