SC- 2013 -documents relating to the ACR are personal
https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/40283.pdf
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2013
(arising out of SLP(C)No.22609 of 2012)
R.K. JAIN . APPELLANT
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ` .RESPONDENTS
J UD G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
6. Recently similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner and others reported in (2013) 1 SCC 212. That was a case in which Central Information Commissioner denied the information pertaining to the service career of the third party to the said case and also denied the details relating to assets, liabilities, moveable and immovable properties of the third party on the ground that the information sought for was qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
In that case this Court also considered the question whether the orders of censure/punishment, etc. are personal information and the performance of an employee/officer in an organization, commonly known as Annual Confidential Report can be disclosed or not. This Court after hearing the parties and noticing the provisions of RTI Act held:
11. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, showcause 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 been accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the
marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is: whether the above mentioned information sought for qualifies to be personal information as
defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
12. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, showcause 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 organisation 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 or 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.
13. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are personal information which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State
Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such
information.
14. The petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information
would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
15. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the
larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition. Hence, the same is dismissed.
17. In view of the discussion made above and the decision in this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande(supra), as the appellant sought for inspection of documents relating to the ACR of the Member, CESTAT, inter alia, relating to adverse entries in the ACR and the follow up action taken therein on the question of integrity, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the
Division Bench whereby the order passed by the learned Single Judge was affirmed. In absence of any merit, the appeal is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.