Can Police Disclose WhatsApp Chats and Photos Collected During Investigation Under RTI Act?

I. Conclusions of the Court

28. The competing arguments advanced on behalf of the parties lead to the following conclusions :

a)􀀁 The designated Information Officer has a duty and an obligation to apply his

mind on the nature of the information which is to be furnished to an

applicant who has sought for such information. This obligation calls for an

active determination taking into account Section 8(1) (a)-(j) and whether an

overwhelming pressure of public interest justifies the disclosure of the information at hand.

b)􀀁 The determination must also involve an assessment of whether the personal

information has any nexus with a public activity or furnishing of such

information would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the

individual concerned.

c)􀀁 The IO must also take into account the mechanism provided under section

11 of the Act involving the information supplied by a third party and treated

as confidential by that third party. In essence, the disclosure must be with

the consent of the third party.

d)􀀁 The IO must also consider whether the information is in the public domain

on the date of the application made for it and trace the movement of the

information from the private to the public domain. In other words, the IO

must see whether the information was put in the public sphere voluntarily

or under threat or compulsion.

e)􀀁 The determination must also include a fact-check as to whether the

information travelled to the public domain at the instance of one party or all

the parties who created and shared the content of the information.

f)􀀁 The determination must be nuanced and sensitive where one of the parties

to the conversation is no longer alive. In such cases, the consent of the other

(living) party to the disclosure of the information may not be relevant for the

purposes of section 8(1)(j) of the Act.

g)􀀁 The significance of section 8(1)(j) which upholds the right to privacy and

ultimately the reputation and dignity of an individual under Article 21 of the

Constitution goes against the tide of a free flow of information and remains

steadfast in holding on to the private space of an individual. The significance

of this provision must not be forgotten or diluted under any circumstances

(Ref. Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law; (2016) 7 SCC

221).

29. In view of the above discussion is allowed and disposed

of by directing the Police Authorities to immediately withdraw the entire series of

photographs and WhatsApp messages between the deceased and

and treat the same as private information which falls within the

clamp of section 8(1)(j) of The Right to Information Act. The authorities are to

ensure that the WhatsApp messages and the photographs are not disclosed to any

person or authority by way of an application under the Right to Information Act or

otherwise.

 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

X Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Present :-

The Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya.

Delivered on : 29.09.2022.

Print Page

Whether oath taken by high court judge can be disclosed under RTI?

Respondent No.1 herein in the application filed under Section 6(1)

of the Act of 2005 had only stated that he wish to have the copy of

the oath taken and subscribed by the Hon'ble Judges of the High

Court which is exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(1)(j)

of the Act of 2005, as respondent No.1 herein did not disclose any

public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking

such information of the Hon'ble Judges in the said application nor

was any finding recorded by the second appellate authority i.e. the

Chhattisgarh State Information Commission as to the involvement

of any larger public interest in directing supply of such information

to respondent No.1 under Section 19(8)(a)(i) of the Act of 2005.

The application as filed by respondent No.1 is blissfully silent in that

regard. There is no averment in the application, how the public

interest requires disclosure of such information and the application

is silent in this regard.Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the application

filed by respondent No.1 under Section 6 of the Act of 2005 was

bereft and fails to fulfill the requirement under Section 8(1)(j) of the

Act of 2005 and thus, grant of such information by the learned

Information Commission simply holding that oath is taken by the

Hon'ble Judges in public in presence of respectable persons as

such, the information sought for is granted under Sections 8 and

19(8)(a)(iv) of the Act of 2005, runs contrary to the law and is liable

to be quashed.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.19 of 2017

The Public Information Officer, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Vs Arun Kumar Gupta, 

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order delivered on: 5-8-2019

Print Page

Whether husband can obtain salary details of wife under right to information Act?

It cannot be lost sight of in this case that the relation between the person seeking information of the lady, who is employed in a private company, is that of a husband and wife. On account of a marital discord, the wife has dragged the husband before the District Court. For the purposes of his litigation, the husband requires the information about the salary and provident fund accumulations of the wife. Such information could also be acquired by the husband by making an application before the District Court. Rather than perpetuating the hardships of the husband, the CIC has found it fit to direct the petitioner to disclose the said information.

19. In this backdrop, it is imperative that the petitioner must first come to a conclusion, either under sub-clauses (e) or (j) of Section 8(1) that the information is confidential and cannot be disclosed. It is only when the competent authority justifies the non-disclosure under the first part of sub-clauses (e) or (j) that that the second part in the said sub-clauses would have to be considered to the extent of whether the information is required to be disclosed in larger public interest. In my view, the petitioner has failed in the first place to justify it's refusal to disclose the information. The husband seeking information cannot be said to be a stranger or a third party. The information sought by him also cannot be said to be confidential.

20. In my view, if matrimonial matters are being prosecuted by the parties, there should not be any embargo on divulging the PF accumulations of the wife since the said information is sought by the husband to be placed before the District Court. It also cannot be ignored that the wife is not before this Court and has not challenged the impugned order.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 10690 of 2017

Decided On: 06.09.2017

The Central Public Information Officer Vs.  The Central Information Commissioner and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.V. Ghuge, J.

Citation: 2017(6) MHLJ 795

Print Page

Whether compensation under right to information Act can be granted even if no loss is suffered by applicant?

I find sufficient force in the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader on the side of the petitioners. Exhibit P2 order has recorded clearly that eight relevant pages in the file were not presently available. However, there is nothing to show that these eight pages were available earlier and that it was withheld to the information of the first respondent. The Commission has not considered this aspect in that angle at all. The commission only says that the pages are presently unavailable but does not investigate or conclude whether these pages were available earlier or whether they have been kept deliberately out of the information of the first respondent.

9. In such view of the matter, I am not sure if the order, namely Exhibit P2, mulcting the State of Kerala with liability to pay compensation, to be recovered from its officers, would stand the test of law. I say this because under the provisions of Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Commission would obtain jurisdiction to make such orders to compensate the complainant or to impose penalties only if loss or detriment has been suffered by the applicant. The operational survey of Section 19(8)(b) is unambiguous and concedes to no doubt. A reading of this Section would make the position limpid and for this purpose, I deem it apposite to extract it as below:

“19. Appeal.-(1) Any person who does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section(1) or clause (a) of sub-section(3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expirty of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, in each public authority:

(8) In its decision, the Central Information commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to,—

(b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered.”

10. In the case at hand, even though the first respondent says that he has suffered a loss of Rs. 3,50,000/-, the Commission has granted an amount of Rs. 25,000/- without any adjudication as to the actual loss suffered by him and also without assessing whether the information said to be not given to him was deliberately withheld by the authorities. In the absence of such an enquiry the order of the Commission certainly would not hold legal sustenance and I am, therefore, left without any option but to set aside the same. I do so.

In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

(Before Devan Ramachandran, J.)

The State Public Information Officer 

v.

Sri. Rajendran Pillai 

W.P. (C) No. 31672 of 2011 H

Decided on August 4, 2017

Citation:2017 SCC OnLine Ker 15958 : (2017) 4 KLJ 468

Print Page

Whether information under right to information Act can be denied if investigation is pending?

Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and

exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on

this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should

not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under

Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would

impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is

apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a

ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information

must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information

would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane,

and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and

based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other

such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for

information.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

WP(C) No. 3114/2007

Decided On: 03.12.2007

 Bhagat Singh  Vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges:

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

Print Page

Right to privacy of individual V Right to information of citizens

 While analyzing the right to privacy as
 an ingredient of Article 21, it was observed:

"There can be no doubt that privacy-

dignity claims deserve to be

examined with care and to be denied

only when an important

countervailing interest is shown to be

superior" (emphasis supplied).

It was then said succinctly:

"If the Court does find that a claimed

right is entitled to protection as a

fundamental privacy right, a law

infringing it must satisfy the

compelling State interest test. Then

the question would be whether a

State interest is of such paramount

importance as would justify an

infringement of the right."

It was further explained-

"Privacy primarily concerns the

individual. It therefore relates to and

overlaps with the concept of liberty.

The most serious advocate of privacy

must confess that there are serious

problems of defining the essence and

scope of the right. Privacy interest in

autonomy must also be placed in the

context of other rights and values."

By calling upon the contesting candidate to disclose the assets and liabilities of his/her spouse, the fundamental right to information of a voter/citizen is thereby promoted. When there is a competition between the right to privacy of an individual and the right to information of the citizens, the former right has to be subordinated to the latter right as it serves larger public interest. The right to know about the candidate who intends to become a public figure and a representative of the people would not be effective and real if only truncated information of the assets and liabilities is given. It cannot be denied that the family relationship and social order in our country is such that the husband and wife look to the properties held by them as belonging to the family for all practical purposes, though in the eye of law the properties may distinctly belong to each of them. By and large, there exists a sort of unity of interest in the properties held by spouses. The property being kept in the name of the spouse benami is not unknown in our country. In this situation, it could be said that a countervailing or paramount interest is involved in requiring a candidate who chooses to subject himself/herself to public gaze and scrutiny to furnish the details of assets and liabilities of the spouse as well. That is one way of looking at the problem. More important, it is to be noted that the Parliament itself accepted in principle that not only the assets of the elected candidates but also his or her spouse and dependent children should be disclosed to the constitutional authority and the right of privacy should not come in the way of such disclosure; but, the hitch lies in the fact that the disclosure has to be made to the Speaker or Chairman of the House after he or she is elected. No provision has been made for giving access to the details filed with the presiding officer of the House. By doing so, the Parliament has omitted to give effect to the principle, which it rightly accepted as a step in aid to promote integrity in public life. Having accepted the need to insist on disclosure of assets and liabilities of the elected candidate together with those of other family members, the Parliament refrained from making a provision for furnishing the information at the time of filing the nomination. This has resulted in jeopardizing the right to information implicitly guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a). Therefore, the provision made in Section 75A regarding declaration of assets and liabilities of the elected candidates to the presiding officer has failed to effectuate the right to information and the freedom of expression of the voters/citizens.

Supreme Court of India

People'S Union Of Civil Liberties ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 13 March, 2003

Print Page

Lost A File register offence against person from whose custody file is stolen

Just as we have the Public Information Officer (PIO) in every public authority, there is a Records Officer (RO) in almost every government department who can be fined Rs 10,000 or imprisoned for five years if documents are lost or tampered. Too often, those who seek information from the government are being told that some file or the other is 'lost'; to tackle this we should take recourse to the laws pertaining to lost files, and demand action on that front.

The governing law on lost files of the Central government is to be found in Section 10 of Public Records Act, 1993 (see this link; each of the States has similar laws that govern the secure maintenance of their records.

What do these laws amount to, in the context of RTI applications? The various pieces of legislation dealing with lost files make it quite clear that no government employee can blandly say, 'File lost' to an information seeker. The laws spell out who is to be held responsible, and what is to be done in case documents or files are lost, misplaced or stolen. Therefore, under RTI, "File lost" can only be given as a reason for delay in providing information, but not as a reason for denial of information.

Print Page