News Update

GST - Rule 89 - Refund of ITC - 14/2022-CT - Benefit that gets accrued by way of legislation cannot be denied/curtailed moreso when it is clarificatory in nature: HCGST - Refund of ITC - Production of shipping bills - Transmission of energy could not have been visualized when Rule 89(2) was incorporated in the Statute book: HCGST - Requiring petitioners to produce shipping bills, as proof of export cannot be made applicable to electricity as export can only be through transmission line, but not through rail, road or water for which documents can be made available: HCEconomy Needs Synergetic Inputs to fix twin Deficits of Inflation & Rupee fall43 injured in fire at Durga Puja pandals on UPAgriculture Income & ITR 7OPEC+ debate cutting production by 1 million barrels per day; Crude price up by 3%I-T - 6 months' limitation for deciding refund claims is to be followed strictly: HCBrazil’s Presidential elections: Neither candidates get 50% votes; Bolsonaro to face Lula in second round of pollI-T- Customs duty paid for yacht can be allowed as it is not used by assessee for its own personal use and has operated yacht for benefit and use of entities paying operating fee : ITATLanka reduces tax rate on sanitary napkins amid fiscal crisisI-T - No addition on account of bogus sundry creditors can be made, if AO fails to substantiate non-availability of vendors: ITATXiaomi expresses despair over attachment of Rs 5500 Cr assets in IndiaST - No service tax is payable on amount collected towards liquidated damages: CESTATTruss says her Chancellor decided himself to reduce UK’s rate for top tax bracketCX - There is no reason to deny refund when assessee has availed drawback of only the customs duty portion and not of excise duty: CESTATSexual assault case against founder of JD.com, China’s one of biggest e-commerce giants, settled in USCX - After 1.4.2011, appellant cannot avail credit on outdoor catering services, thus credit availed for period 1.4.2011 to 30.4.2011 which is part of SCN is not eligible for credit: CESTATIsrael, Lebanon about to hammer out deal on maritime tangled borderCus - First Appellate Authority was correct in allowing appeal thereby ordering provisional release of goods in question and since there is no change in facts, same is followed in case on hand as well: CESTATBurkina Faso’s junta leader agrees to dethrone himselfUkraine war - France’s spirited support being questioned; 2% arms support found lowest in EUDeath toll from Hurricane Ian mounts beyond 80 thus far in Florida & Carolina put togetherMexico braces up for Hurricane OrleneSP’s supremo Mulayam Singh Yadav is in ICU at Gurugram MedantaGovt reduces export duty on petro goods; makes Special Additional Excise Duty NIL for ATF; Rs 3.5 per litre on diesel & Rs 8000 per tonne for petrol125 die in Indonesian stampede after fans invade football ground and police hurl teargas; 180 injuredAnti-hijab fire spreads across Iran; Rallies organised throughout countryKing Charles III not to attend COP27 in Egypt on advice of Truss GovtUS, Venezuela swap prisoners - 7 Americans for 2 relatives of President MaduroUS, Japan & Australian Defence Ministers vow to work against Chinese military ambitionsWIPO’s Global Innovation Index - India walks up to 40th rankFM says IBC law cannot be allowed to lose its teeth and object
Untitled Document

No.11/2/2013-IR(Pt.)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training
New Delhi

Dated: August 14, 2013

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Disclosure of personal information under the RTI Act, 2005.

The Central Information Commission in one of its decisions (copy enclosed) has held that information about the complaints made against an officer of the Government and any possible action the authorities might have taken on those complaints, qualifies as personal information within the meaning of provision of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

2. The Central Information Commission while deciding the said case has cited the decision of Supreme Court of India in the matter of Girish R. Deshpande vs. CIC and others (SLP (C) no. 27734/2012) = (2012-TIOL-92-SC-RTI) in which it was held as under:-

"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 could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual." The Supreme Court further held that such information could be disclosed only if it would serve a larger public interest.

3. This may be brought to the notice of all concerned.

(Manoj Joshi)
Joint Secretary (AT&A)

Central information Commission, New Delhi

File No.CIC/SM/A/2013/000058

Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)

Date of Decision: 26.6.2013

SHRI MANOJ ARYA
(RTI ACTIVISTS AND SOCIAL WORKER) 67, SEC-12
CPWD FLATS, R K PURAM, NEW DELHI -110022

Vs

CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
CABINET SECRETARIAT, (VIGILANCE & COMPLAINT CELL)
2ND FLOOR, SARDAR PATEL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI -110001

The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.

On behalf of the Respondent, Shri M.P. Sajeevan, DS & CPIO was present.

The third party, Shri S B Agnihotri, DG (DEF. ACQ) MoD was present.

Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra

2. We heard the submissions of both the respondent and the third party in the case.

3. In his RTI application, the Appellant had sought the copies of the complaints made against the third party in the case and the details of the action taken including the copies of the enquiry reports. He had also wanted the copies of the correspondence made between the Cabinet Secretariat and the Ministry of Shipping in respect of the third party in the case. The CPIO after consulting the third party under Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, had refused to disclose any such information by claiming that it was personal in nature and thus exempted under the provisions of section 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Not satisfied with this decision of the CPIO, the Appellant had preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority had disposed of the appeal in a speaking order in which he had endorsed the decision of the CPIC.

4. We have carefully gone through the contents of the RTI application and the order of the Appellate Authority. We have also considered the submissions of both the respondent and the third party in the case. The entire information \ sought by the Appellant revolves around the complaints made against an officer of the government and any possible action the authorities might have taken on \ those complaints. The Appellate Authority was very right in deciding that this entire class of information was qualified as personal information within the meaning of the provisions of Section 8 (i) (j) of the RTI Act. In this connection, it is very pertinent to cite the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the SLP (C) No. 27734 of 2012 (Girish R Deshpande vs CIC and others) = (2012-TIOL-92-SC-RTI) in which it has held that "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 could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual." The Supreme Court further held that such information could be disclosed only if it would serve a larger public interest. The information sought by the Appellant in this case is about some complaints made against a government official and any possible action the authorities might have taken on those complaints. It is, thus, clearly the kind of information which is envisaged in the above Supreme Court order. Therefore, the information is completely exempted from disclosure under the provisions of the RTI Act which both the CPIO and the Appellate Authority have rightly cited in their respective orders.

5. We find no grounds to interfere in the order of the Appellate Authority. The appeal is rejected.

6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.

(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.

(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar