CIC has observed that the RTI Act did not give any specific or special exemption to share personal information with the spouses; hence information regarding salary details of a woman cannot be given by a public authority even to her husband under the Right to Information Act as it is personal information. CIC was hearing an appeal filed by a husband seeking information regarding the salary details of his wife. The court held that amount of Salary and the details of pay-scale of a public servant can be part of voluntarily disclosable information under Section 4(1)(b), whereas deductions, personal loans, details of net or gross salary paid for a particular month, or seeking a salary slip (payment voucher) and residential addresses are not disclosable, unless larger public interest is involved. If an RTI application is filed for that information, the larger public interest has to be examined by the Public Authorities. While rejecting the plea of the husband, CIC noted that when couples are entangled in legal disputes such as marital claims or cruelty charges, the privacy of individual spouse assumes importance in the context of demand for information and when the spouse does not consent to give information, a citizen, even if a spouse, has no right to information about deductions and expenditure from salary, as that would amount to personal information unless it is in larger public interest. The Commission also cautioned the PIO in the case to be careful in future in disclosing personal information of the ‘third party’. (Dr. Dheeraj Kapoor v. Directorate of Health Services, decided on October 31, 2014)
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
File No.CIC/SA/A/2014/000494
FACTS:
2. The appellant through his RTI application dated sought information of Dr Chetna Kapoor
who is currently posted in DGHS dispensary Viz
1
i)
Detail of Salary : w.e.f date of
joining i.e 07/01/2002 to 31/07/2013. Detail Should include :
a. Basic Pay
b. Non Practise allowance
c. Grade Pay
d. Dearness allowance
e. House Rent allowance
f. Academic/annual allowance
g. Transport allowance (Taxable/non Taxable)
h. Deductions : UTEGIS I, UTEGIS S, DGHS, GPF, Income Tax deduction, Education Cess
etc.
ii)
Detail of residential adress as
mentioned in Service Book w.e.f date of joining
iii)
Detail of rent reciepts against
HRA, for income tax exemption against HRA if any.
3. PIO replied on 18112013. Being unsatisfied with the information provided, the appellant
preferred First Appeal on 17122013. Claiming nonsatisfaction over the information
provided, the appellant has approached the Commission in Second Appeal.
Decision:
4. Both the parties made their submissions. The appellant is represented by his father and
mother. The Commission observes that except the information that is to be furnished under
Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, the rest of the information pertaining to Public Servant is
generally treated as ‘third party’ information, which is to be provided after hearing the
2
objections from the third party and giving the opportunity to the third party, to appeal against
the decision to give the ‘third party’ information to the RTI applicant.
5. Before going into the question as to whether the information disclosed by the respondent
authority of the third party who is a Public servant is valid or not, it is necessary to look into the
relevant law, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act:
“(j) 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 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:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a
State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.”
6. Central Information Commission in number of its decisions has not allowed disclosure of
income tax returns, PAN numbers, details filed for tax determination, bank accounts, source of
funds, partnership details, plan to run dealership etc. However any activity of a public servant
in his official capacity has to be disclosed. Service matters like appointment, suspension,
revocation of suspension, postings, calculation of pension, details of leave, tour, etc were
allowed to be disclosed. However entire service book of a particular employee cannot be
disclosed as that matter between employee and employer. Employee can seek it and get it, but
for others it is third party information, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. [Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012] dated 3 October 2012 had observed as follows :
3
“13. .... 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. ... but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of
right. ....The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal
information”
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in R. K Jain Vs Union of India (UOI) and Anr. [ SLP (C) No. 22609
of 2012] with regard to third party information made similar observations regarding personal information
with reference to third party under Section 8(1)(j).
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vijay Prakash Vs Union of India [W.P. (C) 803/2009]
observed:
“20. .... a distinction must be made between "official" information inherent to the position
and those that are not, and therefore affect only his/her private life. This balancing task
appears to be easy; but is in practice, not so, having regard to the dynamics inherent in
the conflict. Though it may be justifiably stated that protection of the public servant's
private or personal details as an individual, is necessary, provided that such protection
does not prevent due accountability, there is a powerful counter argument that public
servants must effectively waive the right to privacy in favour of transparency. Thus, if
public access to the personal details such as identity particulars of public servants, i.e.
details such as their dates of birth, personal identification numbers, or other personal
information furnished to public agencies, is requested, the balancing exercise, necessarily
dependant and evolving on case by case basis may take into account the following
relevant considerations, i.e.
i) whether the information is deemed to comprise the individual's private
details, unrelated to his position in the organization, and,
ii) whether the disclosure of the personal information is with the aim of providing
knowledge of the proper performance of the duties and tasks assigned to the public
servant in any specific case;
4
...
iii) whether the disclosure will furnish any information required to establish accountability
or transparency in the use of public resources.
The Commission in Ms. Manisha Vs. Integrated Headquarter of Army (MOD)
[CIC/WB/A/2007/001636SM] with regard to Voluntary disclosure of Salary details Under Sec 4 (1)
(b)(X) had observed as follows :
“4. Section 4(1) (b) (x) reads as follows:
“the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the
system of compensation as provided in its regulations”.
5. It is evident from the above that the details of remuneration etc., of an employee were
to be disclosed by the Public Authority as a part of suomotu disclosure under Section
4(1) (b) of the RTI Act. In other words, information in respect of the salary and other
remunerations of an employee are not privileged information and will have to be
placed in the public domain. If the Public Authority concerned has not done so yet, it
must immediately place such details in the public domain. We direct the CPIO and the
Appellate Authority to provide the information in regard to monthly remuneration received
by Capt. Naresh Kundu (DE83MCEME) at the time of providing the information within 10
working days from the receipt of this order. Other details sought by the Appellant need not
be provided as it is not mandated under the above section of the Act.”
The Delhi High Court in Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Public Information Officer [AIR 2010 Del
216] considered Section 11 of the RTI Act. The Court held that once the information seeker is
provided information relating to a third party, it is no longer in the private domain. Such information
seeker can then disclose in turn such information to the whole World. Therefore, for providing the
information the procedure outlined under Section 11(1) cannot be dispensed with.
Karnataka High Court in HE Rajasekharappa v SPIO [AIR 2009 Kar. 8] decided on 1st July
2008 by Justice K Bhakthavatsala held that citizen had no right to information about personal
information of the public servant as section 2(f) did not encompass the ‘personal information’.
5
7. In this case, the Commission holds that the information about the details of deductions,
address etc of Dr Chetna Kapoor is her personal information the ‘third party’ and the PIO has to
necessarily follow the procedure under Section 11(1).
8. Amount of Salary and the details of payscale of public servant can be part of voluntarily
disclosable information under Section 4(1)(b), whereas deductions, personal loans, details of net
or gross salary paid for a particular month, or seeking a salary slip (payment voucher) and
residential addresses are not disclosable, unless larger public interest is involved. If an RTI
Application is filed for that information, the larger public interest has to be examined by the PIOs,
Appellate Authorities and the Commission.
9. Before deciding the nature of information sought in this case, one more complication need to
be addressed, i.e., right of citizen seeking wife’s information from public authority, who employed
wife. The issue is privacy between spouses. The RTI Act did not give any specific or special
exemption to share personal information with the spouses. As far as RTI Act is concerned there is
no difference between the spouse and citizen. Right to privacy is an individual right and within the
couple, each individual can claim or give up that right. Especially when spouses are entangled in
legal disputes such as marital claims or cruelty charges, the privacy of individual spouse assumes
importance in the context of demand for information. When the spouse does not consent to give
information, the courts of law have to examine the need and then direct the other party to disclose
if justified. For instance in maintenance petition by one spouse against the other, the court of law
has to examine the claims, income and expenditure of both the spouses and direct accordingly in
order to decide the issue and amount of maintenance.
10. The information about salary amount of Dr. Chetna Kapur, an employee of DGHS
dispensary, the third party in this case, is in public domain and can be accessed by any person
6
from the website of the public authority which is supposed to disclose under Section 4(1)(b) or
through an RTI Application under Section 3. Such information cannot be denied even to her
husband. Whether it is for maintenance or for any other purpose, such information can be
disclosed without seeking reasons for disclosure. There is no privacy pertaining to the information
about salary or pay scale of public servant, which is fixed by a wage board after open hearings
and paid by the state. There is nothing confidential about it. Such information cannot be
considered as held in any fiduciary capacity because it is between employer and employee.
11. This Commission in its earlier order (Jyoti Seherawat Vs. Home (General)
Dept., GNCTD, File No.CIC/AD/A/2012/003341SA) explained the right to information
of salary of spouse as a citizen and culled out following points.
a) The salary paid to the public servant by the public authority is sourced from the tax paid by the
people in general. The scale of salary is also fixed by the Public Authority based on certain
reasonable fixation in an open exercise by Pay Revision Commissions which later would be
generally approved by the Government, which is the representative of the people. Thus the
information belongs to public and they have a right to access to it as per RTI Act. It has to be
disclosed under Section 4 voluntarily by the Public Authority and if a member of public seeks it, it
cannot be denied.
b) The information about salary of employee/officer of the same Public Authority cannot be
considered as ‘third party information’. The employee of the public authority is part of that public
authority and hence he is not the third party. Hence there is no need to obtain the consent of the
particular employee for disclosure of that information as provided under the RTI Act, unless it falls
under any exception. It may be recalled that even in case of third party information, if the
Commission considers the public interest demands, such information can be given in spite of
refusal by the third party. Public Authorities cannot reject such RTI applications about salary
under the pretext of third party information.
c) As per the provisions of various personal laws applicable to people of different religions, the
husband as an earning member of family has a legal duty to maintain the wife and children. It is
an undisputed fact that the dependents such as wives and children can seek a direction from the
Courts of Justice. Even after the divorce, the family law ordains that Husband has a duty to
provide for necessary maintenance of the wife and children. Section 125 of Criminal Procedure
Code mandated that husband has a general duty to maintain wife and children. The wife’s
7
entitlement to know the salary particulars of her husband gets further fortified by all the above
legal provisions.
d) Especially when the wife is seeking the salary particulars of the Husband, from the public
authority where he is working as public servant, it is the duty of the public authority to render
required assistance by providing necessary information to her to secure justice. Denial of such
information to wife is thus, highly unreasonable, not justified and it will also amount to breach of
legal obligation.
e) The maintenance of spouse and children of the family is the legal responsibility of the earning
member of the family. Depending upon the situation a husband if dependent or incapable of
earning might seek similar information about the salary of the wife, if she is an employee of the
public authority.
12. All that information about salary, such as DA, HRA, pension etc of public servants as
available in public domain shall be made available to seekers under RTI Act also. The
information about salary which is not part of ‘scale’, is not public information. The information
for instance, about deduction of installment for personal loan, payments or savings made by
public servant, expenditure details etc is his personal information. As a spouse whether he/she
wants to give that private information to the other spouse or not is personal discretion of the
spouse. Thus it becomes third party information as far as the spouse (husband in this case) is
concerned. In his capacity as a citizen, the appellant is entitled to know the salary particulars
of his wife (third party here). Similarly as a citizen has no right to know the private particulars
of salary, he can have information about salary amount but not the details of deductions etc of
salary of his wife. The Commission is not discussing rights and duties of spouses here, it has
to decide what information to be disclosed among citizens who happens to be spouses.
Sometimes spouse’s interest in securing her\his right might be considered as public interest. A
citizen, even if a spouse, has no right to information about deductions and expenditure from
salary, as that would amount to personal information unless it is in larger public interest.
8
13. In the present case, the information sought about Dr. Chetna Kapoor who is currently
posted in DGHS dispensary is: Detail of Salary : w.e.f date of joining i.e 07/01/2002 to
31/07/2013 including Basic Pay, Non Practise allowance, Grade Pay,Dearness allowance,
House Rent allowance, Academic/annual allowance, Transport allowance (Taxable/non
Taxable) and Education Cess. All this information is in public domain and thus it can be
disclosed under S. 4(1)(b) and to which the appellant can also have access to.
14. The appellant had further sought information as to deductions : UTEGIS I, UTEGIS S,
DGHS, GPF, Income Tax deduction, etc., Details of residential adress as mentioned in Service
Book w.e.f date of joining, Detail of rent reciepts against HRA, for income tax exemption
against HRA if any. All these details about service of public servant is not in public domain.
This information has no relation to public acitviity. Disclosure of this information will result in
unwarranted invasion of privacy, which is prohibited by Section 8(1)(j). These details are not
part of ‘salary’ information in public domain. Salary being given is in public domain, spending
of it is personal information. Disclosure of kind of expenditure by public servant could be
unwarranted invasion of privacy. Section 8(1)(j) along with proviso of public interest and
Section 11 will operate.
Third party information: PIO’s Duty
15. Thus it is third party information necessitating PIO to invoke procedure under Section 11.
The PIO has a responsibility to check up whether Dr. Chetna Kapur would like to share or not
such information. In this case Dr. Chetna Kapur refused to share the same with her husband
with whom she is locked in marital disputes in courts of law. In fact, giving details about
deduction will be useful for her as that shows her expenditure which is relevant in hearing of
maintenance petition. However it is left to her personal discretion to agree or refuse.
9
16. The respondent sought her consent, which she refused. The First Appellate Authority
held the information as not confidential and ordered PIO to give such information to appellant.
The First Appellate Authority has not given any reasons for that conclusion. It was not FAA
case that information sought was personal but there existed larger public interest and hence
the information shall be given. The order does not even mention these aspects. He has held
that information regarding deductions : UTEGIS I, UTEGIS S, DGHS, GPF, Income Tax
deduction, etc., and detail of residential adress as mentioned in Service Book w.e.f date of
joining, detail of rent reciepts against HRA, for income tax exemption against HRA if any, was
not confidential in a short, three line order. This order is totally against the letter and spirit of
RTI Act.
17. Initially the PIO has rightly refused to give above information considering it as information
of ‘third party’. The PIO pursued procedure under Section 11 and sought the opinion of third
party Dr Chetna Kapoor, who refused to give consent, but after FAA ordered disclosure the
PIO did not initiate process to inform and obtain opinion of third party. Dr Chetna Kapoor also
was not informed abour her right to second appeal to the Commission. The PIO complied with
the order of First Appellate Authority which was against RTI Act and gave every information
sought. In fact there is no reason or ground left for second appeal as the illegal order of FAA
was fully complied with. Yet the appellant reached the Commission saying some of the sheets
given in answer were not legible.
18. The Commission finds the order of FAA as illegal because; a. he has not given any
reason, b. his direction was against the provisions of RTI Act, c. it would violate the right to
privacy of Dr. Chetna Kapur. If the information sought is essential for maintenance and for
deciding other petitions filed by husband, the appropriate court of law which is hearing that
10
case would be proper authority to direct the disclosure or otherwise of the information. The
Commission holds that the information about the salay and pay scale would serve the interest
and purpose of maintenance rights of the spouses. It was not fair and proper for the appellant
to come in second appeal even after he got information needed for pursuing his right against
his wife.
19. In this case, the Third Party refused to give her consent and the PIO had furnished the
third party information to the appellant, though, in compliance of the FAA’s illegal order, without
giving the opportunity to the third party to prevent it by going in 2nd appeal. The Commission
also observes that the FAA did not give any reasoned order overriding the requirement of
consent of the Third Party in this case without saying anything on the public interest issue.
The Commission, therefore, sets aside the order of FAA for reasons explained above. The
Commission advises the PIOs of public authorities not to deny the right of second appeal of
the public servants such as Dr. Chetna Kapur, and not to disclose the personal information
without allowing them to exhaust that right of appeal by the affected party, especially after First
Appellate Authority’s order, which was illegal.
20. The Commission cautions the PIO in this case to be careful in future in disclosing
personal information of the ‘third party’ and should ensure that the third party is given
complete opportunity as prescribed by law even after the first appeal.
21. The Third Party, Dr. Chetna Kapoor who is present in the hearing, requested not to share
her Service Book and other personal information including her residential address at any
stage of her service. The Commission also observes that the PIO had already supplied
wrongfully, copies of Pay Book Register (PBR), which was supposed to be private information
of the third party. The Commission directs the PIO not to supply any such documents as they
11
squarely fall under private information of the third party. Regarding the other information
sought by the appellant under 2nd appeal, the Commission observes that such information
cannot be given as it was personal information of third party, who has refused to consent for
the same. There is also no larger public interest involved in this regard. Hence no further
information be given to the appellant, other than what is already given by the PIO. The
Commission closes the appeal accordingly.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(Babu Lal)
Deputy Registrar
Print Page
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
File No.CIC/SA/A/2014/000494
FACTS:
2. The appellant through his RTI application dated sought information of Dr Chetna Kapoor
who is currently posted in DGHS dispensary Viz
1
i)
Detail of Salary : w.e.f date of
joining i.e 07/01/2002 to 31/07/2013. Detail Should include :
a. Basic Pay
b. Non Practise allowance
c. Grade Pay
d. Dearness allowance
e. House Rent allowance
f. Academic/annual allowance
g. Transport allowance (Taxable/non Taxable)
h. Deductions : UTEGIS I, UTEGIS S, DGHS, GPF, Income Tax deduction, Education Cess
etc.
ii)
Detail of residential adress as
mentioned in Service Book w.e.f date of joining
iii)
Detail of rent reciepts against
HRA, for income tax exemption against HRA if any.
3. PIO replied on 18112013. Being unsatisfied with the information provided, the appellant
preferred First Appeal on 17122013. Claiming nonsatisfaction over the information
provided, the appellant has approached the Commission in Second Appeal.
Decision:
4. Both the parties made their submissions. The appellant is represented by his father and
mother. The Commission observes that except the information that is to be furnished under
Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, the rest of the information pertaining to Public Servant is
generally treated as ‘third party’ information, which is to be provided after hearing the
2
objections from the third party and giving the opportunity to the third party, to appeal against
the decision to give the ‘third party’ information to the RTI applicant.
5. Before going into the question as to whether the information disclosed by the respondent
authority of the third party who is a Public servant is valid or not, it is necessary to look into the
relevant law, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act:
“(j) 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 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:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a
State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.”
6. Central Information Commission in number of its decisions has not allowed disclosure of
income tax returns, PAN numbers, details filed for tax determination, bank accounts, source of
funds, partnership details, plan to run dealership etc. However any activity of a public servant
in his official capacity has to be disclosed. Service matters like appointment, suspension,
revocation of suspension, postings, calculation of pension, details of leave, tour, etc were
allowed to be disclosed. However entire service book of a particular employee cannot be
disclosed as that matter between employee and employer. Employee can seek it and get it, but
for others it is third party information, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. [Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012] dated 3 October 2012 had observed as follows :
3
“13. .... 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. ... but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of
right. ....The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal
information”
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in R. K Jain Vs Union of India (UOI) and Anr. [ SLP (C) No. 22609
of 2012] with regard to third party information made similar observations regarding personal information
with reference to third party under Section 8(1)(j).
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vijay Prakash Vs Union of India [W.P. (C) 803/2009]
observed:
“20. .... a distinction must be made between "official" information inherent to the position
and those that are not, and therefore affect only his/her private life. This balancing task
appears to be easy; but is in practice, not so, having regard to the dynamics inherent in
the conflict. Though it may be justifiably stated that protection of the public servant's
private or personal details as an individual, is necessary, provided that such protection
does not prevent due accountability, there is a powerful counter argument that public
servants must effectively waive the right to privacy in favour of transparency. Thus, if
public access to the personal details such as identity particulars of public servants, i.e.
details such as their dates of birth, personal identification numbers, or other personal
information furnished to public agencies, is requested, the balancing exercise, necessarily
dependant and evolving on case by case basis may take into account the following
relevant considerations, i.e.
i) whether the information is deemed to comprise the individual's private
details, unrelated to his position in the organization, and,
ii) whether the disclosure of the personal information is with the aim of providing
knowledge of the proper performance of the duties and tasks assigned to the public
servant in any specific case;
4
...
iii) whether the disclosure will furnish any information required to establish accountability
or transparency in the use of public resources.
The Commission in Ms. Manisha Vs. Integrated Headquarter of Army (MOD)
[CIC/WB/A/2007/001636SM] with regard to Voluntary disclosure of Salary details Under Sec 4 (1)
(b)(X) had observed as follows :
“4. Section 4(1) (b) (x) reads as follows:
“the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the
system of compensation as provided in its regulations”.
5. It is evident from the above that the details of remuneration etc., of an employee were
to be disclosed by the Public Authority as a part of suomotu disclosure under Section
4(1) (b) of the RTI Act. In other words, information in respect of the salary and other
remunerations of an employee are not privileged information and will have to be
placed in the public domain. If the Public Authority concerned has not done so yet, it
must immediately place such details in the public domain. We direct the CPIO and the
Appellate Authority to provide the information in regard to monthly remuneration received
by Capt. Naresh Kundu (DE83MCEME) at the time of providing the information within 10
working days from the receipt of this order. Other details sought by the Appellant need not
be provided as it is not mandated under the above section of the Act.”
The Delhi High Court in Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Public Information Officer [AIR 2010 Del
216] considered Section 11 of the RTI Act. The Court held that once the information seeker is
provided information relating to a third party, it is no longer in the private domain. Such information
seeker can then disclose in turn such information to the whole World. Therefore, for providing the
information the procedure outlined under Section 11(1) cannot be dispensed with.
Karnataka High Court in HE Rajasekharappa v SPIO [AIR 2009 Kar. 8] decided on 1st July
2008 by Justice K Bhakthavatsala held that citizen had no right to information about personal
information of the public servant as section 2(f) did not encompass the ‘personal information’.
5
7. In this case, the Commission holds that the information about the details of deductions,
address etc of Dr Chetna Kapoor is her personal information the ‘third party’ and the PIO has to
necessarily follow the procedure under Section 11(1).
8. Amount of Salary and the details of payscale of public servant can be part of voluntarily
disclosable information under Section 4(1)(b), whereas deductions, personal loans, details of net
or gross salary paid for a particular month, or seeking a salary slip (payment voucher) and
residential addresses are not disclosable, unless larger public interest is involved. If an RTI
Application is filed for that information, the larger public interest has to be examined by the PIOs,
Appellate Authorities and the Commission.
9. Before deciding the nature of information sought in this case, one more complication need to
be addressed, i.e., right of citizen seeking wife’s information from public authority, who employed
wife. The issue is privacy between spouses. The RTI Act did not give any specific or special
exemption to share personal information with the spouses. As far as RTI Act is concerned there is
no difference between the spouse and citizen. Right to privacy is an individual right and within the
couple, each individual can claim or give up that right. Especially when spouses are entangled in
legal disputes such as marital claims or cruelty charges, the privacy of individual spouse assumes
importance in the context of demand for information. When the spouse does not consent to give
information, the courts of law have to examine the need and then direct the other party to disclose
if justified. For instance in maintenance petition by one spouse against the other, the court of law
has to examine the claims, income and expenditure of both the spouses and direct accordingly in
order to decide the issue and amount of maintenance.
10. The information about salary amount of Dr. Chetna Kapur, an employee of DGHS
dispensary, the third party in this case, is in public domain and can be accessed by any person
6
from the website of the public authority which is supposed to disclose under Section 4(1)(b) or
through an RTI Application under Section 3. Such information cannot be denied even to her
husband. Whether it is for maintenance or for any other purpose, such information can be
disclosed without seeking reasons for disclosure. There is no privacy pertaining to the information
about salary or pay scale of public servant, which is fixed by a wage board after open hearings
and paid by the state. There is nothing confidential about it. Such information cannot be
considered as held in any fiduciary capacity because it is between employer and employee.
11. This Commission in its earlier order (Jyoti Seherawat Vs. Home (General)
Dept., GNCTD, File No.CIC/AD/A/2012/003341SA) explained the right to information
of salary of spouse as a citizen and culled out following points.
a) The salary paid to the public servant by the public authority is sourced from the tax paid by the
people in general. The scale of salary is also fixed by the Public Authority based on certain
reasonable fixation in an open exercise by Pay Revision Commissions which later would be
generally approved by the Government, which is the representative of the people. Thus the
information belongs to public and they have a right to access to it as per RTI Act. It has to be
disclosed under Section 4 voluntarily by the Public Authority and if a member of public seeks it, it
cannot be denied.
b) The information about salary of employee/officer of the same Public Authority cannot be
considered as ‘third party information’. The employee of the public authority is part of that public
authority and hence he is not the third party. Hence there is no need to obtain the consent of the
particular employee for disclosure of that information as provided under the RTI Act, unless it falls
under any exception. It may be recalled that even in case of third party information, if the
Commission considers the public interest demands, such information can be given in spite of
refusal by the third party. Public Authorities cannot reject such RTI applications about salary
under the pretext of third party information.
c) As per the provisions of various personal laws applicable to people of different religions, the
husband as an earning member of family has a legal duty to maintain the wife and children. It is
an undisputed fact that the dependents such as wives and children can seek a direction from the
Courts of Justice. Even after the divorce, the family law ordains that Husband has a duty to
provide for necessary maintenance of the wife and children. Section 125 of Criminal Procedure
Code mandated that husband has a general duty to maintain wife and children. The wife’s
7
entitlement to know the salary particulars of her husband gets further fortified by all the above
legal provisions.
d) Especially when the wife is seeking the salary particulars of the Husband, from the public
authority where he is working as public servant, it is the duty of the public authority to render
required assistance by providing necessary information to her to secure justice. Denial of such
information to wife is thus, highly unreasonable, not justified and it will also amount to breach of
legal obligation.
e) The maintenance of spouse and children of the family is the legal responsibility of the earning
member of the family. Depending upon the situation a husband if dependent or incapable of
earning might seek similar information about the salary of the wife, if she is an employee of the
public authority.
12. All that information about salary, such as DA, HRA, pension etc of public servants as
available in public domain shall be made available to seekers under RTI Act also. The
information about salary which is not part of ‘scale’, is not public information. The information
for instance, about deduction of installment for personal loan, payments or savings made by
public servant, expenditure details etc is his personal information. As a spouse whether he/she
wants to give that private information to the other spouse or not is personal discretion of the
spouse. Thus it becomes third party information as far as the spouse (husband in this case) is
concerned. In his capacity as a citizen, the appellant is entitled to know the salary particulars
of his wife (third party here). Similarly as a citizen has no right to know the private particulars
of salary, he can have information about salary amount but not the details of deductions etc of
salary of his wife. The Commission is not discussing rights and duties of spouses here, it has
to decide what information to be disclosed among citizens who happens to be spouses.
Sometimes spouse’s interest in securing her\his right might be considered as public interest. A
citizen, even if a spouse, has no right to information about deductions and expenditure from
salary, as that would amount to personal information unless it is in larger public interest.
8
13. In the present case, the information sought about Dr. Chetna Kapoor who is currently
posted in DGHS dispensary is: Detail of Salary : w.e.f date of joining i.e 07/01/2002 to
31/07/2013 including Basic Pay, Non Practise allowance, Grade Pay,Dearness allowance,
House Rent allowance, Academic/annual allowance, Transport allowance (Taxable/non
Taxable) and Education Cess. All this information is in public domain and thus it can be
disclosed under S. 4(1)(b) and to which the appellant can also have access to.
14. The appellant had further sought information as to deductions : UTEGIS I, UTEGIS S,
DGHS, GPF, Income Tax deduction, etc., Details of residential adress as mentioned in Service
Book w.e.f date of joining, Detail of rent reciepts against HRA, for income tax exemption
against HRA if any. All these details about service of public servant is not in public domain.
This information has no relation to public acitviity. Disclosure of this information will result in
unwarranted invasion of privacy, which is prohibited by Section 8(1)(j). These details are not
part of ‘salary’ information in public domain. Salary being given is in public domain, spending
of it is personal information. Disclosure of kind of expenditure by public servant could be
unwarranted invasion of privacy. Section 8(1)(j) along with proviso of public interest and
Section 11 will operate.
Third party information: PIO’s Duty
15. Thus it is third party information necessitating PIO to invoke procedure under Section 11.
The PIO has a responsibility to check up whether Dr. Chetna Kapur would like to share or not
such information. In this case Dr. Chetna Kapur refused to share the same with her husband
with whom she is locked in marital disputes in courts of law. In fact, giving details about
deduction will be useful for her as that shows her expenditure which is relevant in hearing of
maintenance petition. However it is left to her personal discretion to agree or refuse.
9
16. The respondent sought her consent, which she refused. The First Appellate Authority
held the information as not confidential and ordered PIO to give such information to appellant.
The First Appellate Authority has not given any reasons for that conclusion. It was not FAA
case that information sought was personal but there existed larger public interest and hence
the information shall be given. The order does not even mention these aspects. He has held
that information regarding deductions : UTEGIS I, UTEGIS S, DGHS, GPF, Income Tax
deduction, etc., and detail of residential adress as mentioned in Service Book w.e.f date of
joining, detail of rent reciepts against HRA, for income tax exemption against HRA if any, was
not confidential in a short, three line order. This order is totally against the letter and spirit of
RTI Act.
17. Initially the PIO has rightly refused to give above information considering it as information
of ‘third party’. The PIO pursued procedure under Section 11 and sought the opinion of third
party Dr Chetna Kapoor, who refused to give consent, but after FAA ordered disclosure the
PIO did not initiate process to inform and obtain opinion of third party. Dr Chetna Kapoor also
was not informed abour her right to second appeal to the Commission. The PIO complied with
the order of First Appellate Authority which was against RTI Act and gave every information
sought. In fact there is no reason or ground left for second appeal as the illegal order of FAA
was fully complied with. Yet the appellant reached the Commission saying some of the sheets
given in answer were not legible.
18. The Commission finds the order of FAA as illegal because; a. he has not given any
reason, b. his direction was against the provisions of RTI Act, c. it would violate the right to
privacy of Dr. Chetna Kapur. If the information sought is essential for maintenance and for
deciding other petitions filed by husband, the appropriate court of law which is hearing that
10
case would be proper authority to direct the disclosure or otherwise of the information. The
Commission holds that the information about the salay and pay scale would serve the interest
and purpose of maintenance rights of the spouses. It was not fair and proper for the appellant
to come in second appeal even after he got information needed for pursuing his right against
his wife.
19. In this case, the Third Party refused to give her consent and the PIO had furnished the
third party information to the appellant, though, in compliance of the FAA’s illegal order, without
giving the opportunity to the third party to prevent it by going in 2nd appeal. The Commission
also observes that the FAA did not give any reasoned order overriding the requirement of
consent of the Third Party in this case without saying anything on the public interest issue.
The Commission, therefore, sets aside the order of FAA for reasons explained above. The
Commission advises the PIOs of public authorities not to deny the right of second appeal of
the public servants such as Dr. Chetna Kapur, and not to disclose the personal information
without allowing them to exhaust that right of appeal by the affected party, especially after First
Appellate Authority’s order, which was illegal.
20. The Commission cautions the PIO in this case to be careful in future in disclosing
personal information of the ‘third party’ and should ensure that the third party is given
complete opportunity as prescribed by law even after the first appeal.
21. The Third Party, Dr. Chetna Kapoor who is present in the hearing, requested not to share
her Service Book and other personal information including her residential address at any
stage of her service. The Commission also observes that the PIO had already supplied
wrongfully, copies of Pay Book Register (PBR), which was supposed to be private information
of the third party. The Commission directs the PIO not to supply any such documents as they
11
squarely fall under private information of the third party. Regarding the other information
sought by the appellant under 2nd appeal, the Commission observes that such information
cannot be given as it was personal information of third party, who has refused to consent for
the same. There is also no larger public interest involved in this regard. Hence no further
information be given to the appellant, other than what is already given by the PIO. The
Commission closes the appeal accordingly.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(Babu Lal)
Deputy Registrar
No comments:
Post a Comment