relationship between the Respondent and the superior

Disclosure would jeopardize the relationship between the Respondent and the superior
CIC/Legal/2007/059
CIC Order No : 374/ICPB/2006
Operative Section : Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Brief of CIC Order :
Commission while allowing the appeal observed,
This Section has to be read as a whole. If done so, it would be apparent that that
personal information does not mean information relating to the information seeker, but about a third party. That is why, in the Section, it is stated unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. If one were to seek information about himself or his own case, the question of invasion of privacy of his own self does not arise. If one were to ask information about a third party and if it were to invade the privacy of the individual, the information seeker can be denied the information on the ground that disclosure would invade the privacy of a third party. Therefore, when a citizen seeks information about his own case and as long as the information sought is not exempt in terms of other provisions of Section 8 of RTI Act, this Section cannot be applied to deny the information. Thus when a citizen seeks information relating to his own affairs, the same cannot be denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. I find that the AA has furnished part information. The CPIO will furnish the remaining information except those in serial Nos. (x), (xii) and (xiii) as they are in the nature of queries. This should be done within 15 days.
Writ Petition No : 7954/2007, Delhi High Court.
Issue :
Whether the Commission was justified in allowing the appeal.
Brief of Court Order :
Court while upholding the order of the Commission dismissed the petition while observing,
 It is pertinent to mention that the Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order has held that when a citizen seeks information about his own case, the same cannot be denied to him under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
In fact, the issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer res integra. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in State Bank of India vs. Mohd. Shahjahan, W.P.(C) 9810/2009 while dealing with a similar issue has held as under:-
24. It was urged by Mr. Kapur that marks given in the PAF by the Superior Officer of the Respondent was information held by the SBI in a fiduciary capacity and that disclosure of such information, even to the Respondent, would be in breach of the fiduciary relationship that the SBI has with the superior officer. In the considered view of this Court, this is a misreading of Sections 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The fiduciary relationship, if at all, is between the employer and the employee. The information which is expected to be kept exempt from disclosure is the information concerning the employee, in this case, the Respondent herein.
The exemption is from disclosure to a third party and certainly not to the Respondent himself. In fact, as explained in Dev Dutt, if the intention of making an adverse entry is to enable the Respondent to improve his performance, then that purpose is not served by keeping the information from him. Unless the adverse entry is communicated to the employee and he is allowed to explain his position, the purpose of getting him to improve his performance will not be achieved.
25. The submission that the disclosure of such information would jeopardize the relationship between the Respondent and the superior officer who recorded the entry is also misconceived. The Respondent already W.P.(C) 7954/2007 Page 3 of 4 knows who his superior officer is and that it is the superior officer who has recorded the adverse entry. That fact is not a secret as far as the Respondent is concerned. Therefore, this can hardly be the ground to deny the Respondent information concerning the adverse entry made in the Respondents ACR or his PAF. If the object is that the Respondent should improve his performance, then it is in the best interests of the organisation itself and the Respondent that such information is disclosed to the Respondent. In the considered view of this Court, the information sought by the Respondent concerning himself, and which has been directed to be disclosed by the CIC, is not protected from exemption under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act.
This is also the tenor of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Union of India v. Central Information Commission 165 (2009) DLT 559 where while interpreting Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act it was explained that where information can be furnished without compromising or affecting confidentiality and identity, it should be supplied and the bar under Section 8 (1) (e) cannot be invoked. There is no question, therefore, of not providing the information concerning the Respondent to the Respondent himself.
26. The provision of Section 8(1) (j) is also not attracted. The disclosure to the Respondent of the information concerning himself can hardly be said to be an unwarranted invasion of his privacy. This is information about himself which he needs to know as it provides the reason why he was not considered for promotion. Therefore, the information directed to be disclosed by the SBI to the Respondent is only the disaggregated marks awarded to him in the promotion process and cannot be stated to be covered under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act.
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid mandate of law, the petitioners plea with regard to exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to W.P.(C) 7954/2007 Page 4 of 4 Information Act, is rejected. 6. This Court is also of the view that the other impugned order dated 01st June 2007 is only in the nature of show cause and if the petitioner has good reason not to disclose the information directed in the notice dated 01st June, 2007, it can raise its pleas and defences before the Central Information Commission.
Status : Disposed of on 18.01.2016