The caste of a person is exempt from disclosure under RTI Act being a personal information – High Court

The caste of a person is exempt from disclosure under RTI Act being falling within the definition of personal information – High Court

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2186 (2018) (01) HC

The Challenge/Grievance:
The petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed by the Central Information Commission (the CIC) who denied the information sought by the petitioner on the ground that the same was in the nature of personal information and was exempted under section 7(9), 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (the Act).

Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties:
Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors: (2011) 8 SCC 497,

Brief Facts of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application under the RTI Act seeking caste certificates of the employees promoted under the reserved category of SC/OBC. The CIPO denied the information on the ground that it was related to personal information and, thus, was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

The matter travelled up to the CIC who concurred with the CPIO that the information sought by the petitioner is exempt from disclosure, as no larger public interest was involved. The CIC opined that the caste and educational certificates of an employee are in the of personal information about a third party. The employee might have filed these documents before the appointing authority for the purpose of seeking employment, but that is not reason enough for this information to be brought in to the public domain to which anybody could have access.

The question of Law framed/urged:
Whether the caste certificates submitted by employees for seeking the benefit of reservations in favour of OBC Category are exempt from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(e) & 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005?

Observations made by the High Court:
The Hon’ble High Court observed that from the plain language of Clause (e) of Section 8 (1) of the Act, it is apparent that only such information which is available to a person in a fiduciary relationship is exempt from disclosure

It was noted that the Supreme Court in a decision had considered the question whether an examining body holds evaluated answer books in a fiduciary relationship and consequently exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act.

The Hon’ble High Court noted that the Hon’ble High Court had opined that if the beneficiary has entrusted anything to the fiduciary, to hold the thing in trust or to execute certain acts in regard to or with reference to the entrusted thing, the fiduciary had to act in confidence and expected not to disclose the thing or information to any third party

The Hon’ble High Court opined that the personal information or details submitted by an employee to an employer for the purposes of his employment are expected to be kept confidential. Such details cannot be available to all and sundry. However, if the competent authority is satisfied that a larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information, the same can be disclosed, Also the Hon’ble High Court opined that it can hardly be disputed that the information relating to the caste of a person would also fall within the definition of “personal information” and, thus, this would also be exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

However, the Hon’ble High Court clarified that even though the information available to any person in a fiduciary capacity is exempt from disclosure in terms of Section 8(1)(e) of the Act; the said exemption is not absolute. If the competent authority is satisfied that a larger public interest warrants disclosure of such information, the same would have to be disclosed notwithstanding, that the same was available with the person in a fiduciary capacity. The width of the exclusionary provision of Section 8(1)(e) of the Act does not extend to information, the disclosure of which is warranted in public interest. Similarly, in terms of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, the personal information which is otherwise exempt from disclosure, can be disclosed if a larger public interest justifies such disclosure.

The Hon’ble High Court noted that in the present case, no material had been indicated to justify that disclosure of the information sought was warranted in larger public interest. Merely stating that disclosure of the information sought would be in the interest of transparency and, thus, in public interest is plainly insufficient.

Decision/ Conclusion/Held:
The Hon’ble High Court declined to interfere with the impugned order. However, it was clarified that if the petitioner is able to establish any special circumstances which would warrant disclosure of information sought by him in larger public interest, he would be at liberty to approach the concerned CPIO for such information.