-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAYCIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTIONWRITPETITIONNO.8753OF2013
ShaileshGandhi )Adult,Agedabout66years
)Hindu,IndianInhabitant,residingat )B2,GokulApartment,PodarRoad,
)Santacruz,(West)Mumbai400054 ) ..Petitioners
Versus
1TheCentralInformationCommission )R.No.326,CWing,IIFloor,
)AugustKrantiBhavan )BhikajiCamaPlace,NewDelhi110066 )
2TheCentralPublicInformationOfficer
)Asst.CommissionerofIncomeTax18(2)
)PiramalChambers,1stfloor,Room,No.15)Lalbaug,Mumbai400012 )
3ShriAjitAPawar )TheDeputychiefMinisterof )StateofMaharashtra
)Deogiri,NarayanDabholkarRoad, )MalabarHill,Mumbai400006 )
..Respondents
ShriJabbarShaikhi/bMr.SandeepJalanforthePetitionerShriRaviKadamSeniorAdvocate,i/bMr.V.P.SawantfortheRespondentNo.3Mr.A.R.MalhtorawithMr.N.A.KazifortheRespondentNo.2
CORAM: R.M.SAVANT,J.RESERVEDON:
6thMAY,2015PRONOUNCEDON:11thJUNE2015
JUDGMENT
1 Rule,withtheconsentoftheLearnedCounselforthepartiesmade
returnableforthwithandheard.
mmj 1of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:48 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
2 TheWritJurisdictionofthisCourt is invokedagainsttheorder
dated1552013passedbytheRespondentNo.1i.e.theCentralInformation
Commissionbywhichorder,theSecondAppealfiledbythePetitionerunder
theRighttoInformationAct2005,(hereinafterreferredtoasthesaidAct)
cametobedismissedandresultantly,theorderspassedbytheCentralPublic
InformationOfficer(CPIOforshort)oftheIncomeTaxDepartmentandthe
order dated 522013 passed by the First Appellate Authority came
to be
confirmed.
3 ThePetitionerabovenamedclaimstobeanRTIactivistandisa
formerCentralInformationCommissioner(CIC).Presently,thePetitioneristhe
Chairman of the Technical Advisory Committee set up by the
Municipal
CorporationofGreaterMumbaitoadviseonRTI,inahonorarycapacity.
4 ThePetitioneronorabout21112012madeanapplicationunder
Section6ofthesaidAct,totheCPIOoftheIncomeTaxDepartmentinteralia
requestingcertaininformationandmoreparticularlytheIncomeTaxReturns
andbalance sheets of the Respondent No.3 herein for the
preceding three
years.ThePetitionerinthesaidapplicationjustifiedtheinformationsoughtby
statingtothefollowingeffect:Thereisalargerpublicinterestindisclosing
thisinformationtocomparehisaffidavitgiventotheElectionCommissionwith
hisIncomeTaxreturns.SincetheinformationrelatedtotheRespondentNo.3
mmj 2of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:48 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
whoisathirdparty,itseemsthatintermsofSection11ofthesaidAct,aletter
wasaddressedbytheCPIOtotheRespondentNo.3.Areplywasreceivedfrom
theRespondentNo.3opposingthedisclosureofanyinformation.TheCPIOof
theIncomeTaxDepartmentthereafterbyherorderdated212013deniedthe
saidinformationsoughtbythePetitioner.Itwasobservedinthesaidorderthat
theinformationsoughtforhasnorelationshiptoanypublicactivityorinterest
andthereforedoesnotqualifyinviewoftheprovisionsofSection8(1)(j)of
thesaidAct.ThePetitionerwashoweverinformedthatifheisaggrievedby
the said order, he may file an Appeal before the First Appellate
Authority
whosedesignationwasmentionedinthesaidorder.
5 ThePetitioneraccordinglyfiledaFirstAppealunderSection19of
thesaidAct.ThesaidAppealinteraliacontainedthegroundsonwhichthe
orderwaschallenged,oneofthegroundsintheAppealwasthatthedisclosure
of the information to another person cannot be construed as
being
unwarrantedinvasionoftheprivacyof
theindividual.Anothergroundthat
wassetoutwasthatthefulfillmentofthestatutoryrequirementswouldnotbe
covered by the exemption contemplated under Section 8(1)(j). A
further
groundwhichwassetoutwasthattheinformationwhichcannotbedeniedto
Parliament,acitizenwouldbeentitledtothesameinformation,asParliament
itselfderiveditslegitimacyfromthecitizens,andlastlyitwassetoutthatthe
standardofdisclosureforthosewhowanttobepublicservantshasbeenset
mmj 3of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
higherbytheApexCourtintheJudgmentinUnionofIndiaVs.Association
for Democratic Reforms & Anr.(ADR)1. The said order was
therefore
challengedonthegroundthatexemptionunderSection8(1)(j)doesnotapply.
6 TheFirstAppealwasconsideredbytheAppellateAuthorityi.e.the
Additional Commissionerof IncomeTax18(2)whobyhis
orderdated52
2013rejected the said Appeal. TheFirst Appellate Authority
reiterated the
groundsonwhichtheinformationwasdeniedbytheCPIO.TheFirstAppellate
AuthorityreferredtotheJudgmentoftheApexCourtinthecaseof
Girish
Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commission &
Ors.2
whereintheApexCourthasheldthatthedetailsdisclosedbyapersoninhis
Income Tax returns is personal information which stands exempted
from
disclosureunderclause(1)ofSection8(j)ofthesaidActunlesslargerpublic
interestisinvolved.TheFirstAppellateAuthorityheldthatinviewofthethird
party'sobjectionasalsoinviewofthedecisionoftheApexCourtin
Girish
Ramchandra Deshpande's case (supra), the information sought by
the
PetitionerfallsundertheexemptedcategoryspecifiedunderSection8(1)(j)of
the said Act. The First Appellate Authority further observed
that the said
information is a personal information the disclosure of which
has no
relationship to any public activity or interest and which would
cause
unwarranted invasionof the privacyof the concernedparty. Hence
on the
1 (2002)5SupremeCourtCases2942 (2013)1SupremeCourtCases212
mmj 4of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
aforesaidgrounds,theAppealfiledbythePetitionercametoberejected.
7 ThePetitionerthereafterfiledaSecondAppealbeforetheCentral
Information Commission, New Delhi. The Petitioner in the Second
Appeal
relieduponthejudgmentoftheApexCourtinthematterofR.Rajgopalalias
R.R.Gopal&Anr.Vs.StateofTamilNadu&Ors.3andtheJudgmentofthe
ApexCourt in AssociationforDemocraticRights's case(supra),
aground
was raised that the judgment of the Apex Court in Girish
Ramchandra
Desphande'scase(supra)hasbeenrenderedwithoutconsideringthesaidtwo
judgmentsasalsowithoutconsideringtheprovisotothesaidSection8(1)(j)of
the said Act. The said Second Appeal filed by the Petitioner
came to be
disposedofbytheCentralInformationCommissionerbyupholdingtheorders
passedbythePublicInformationOfficerandtheFirstAppellateAuthority.The
CentralInformationCommissionerinhisorderreferredtothe5MemberBench
Judgment dated 562009 of the Commission wherein the said 5
Member
BenchhadheldthatIncomeTaxReturnshavebeenrightlyheldtobepersonal
informationexemptedfromdisclosureunderclause8(1)(j)ofthesaidAct.The
SecondAppellateAuthorityalsoreferredtothejudgmentoftheApexcourtin
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case (supra) holding that the
details
disclosedbyapersoninhisIncomeTaxReturnsispersonalinformationwhich
hasbeenexemptedfromdisclosureunderclause(j)ofSection8(1)ofthesaid
Act, unless involved a larger public and the CPIO and or State
Public
3 (1994)6SupremeCourtCases632
mmj 5of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
InformationOfficerortheAppellateAuthorityissatisfiedthatthelargerpublic
interestjustifiesthedisclosureofsuchinformation.TheCentralInformation
CommissionerhasobservedthatinthepresentAppealthePetitionerhasnot
beenabletoproveanylargerpublicinterestwithcorroborativeevidenceand
thereforeupheldthedecisionsoftheCentralPublicInformationOfficerand
the First Appellate Authority and disposed of the said Second
Appeal. As
indicatedabove,itisthesaidorderdated1532015,passedbytheCentral
InformationCommissionerwhichistakenexceptiontobywayoftheabove
Petition.
An Affidavit in Reply dated 2722014 is filed on behalf of
the
RespondentNo.2.TheLearnedCounsel
forthePetitionersubmittedWritten
Submissionson752015.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL MR. JABBAR SHAIKH ON
BEHALFOFTHEPETITIONER
(i)
ThattheCentralPublicInformationOfficer,theFirstAppellateAuthority
and the Central Information Commissioner have erred in rejecting
the
applicationfiledbythePetitionerseekingtheIncomeTaxReturnsfor3yearsof
theRespondentNo.3whichhavebeensoughtforbythesaidapplicationonthe
groundthatthesaidinformationisexemptedunderSection8(1)(j)ofthesaid
Act.
(ii)
Thatallthethreeauthoritiesbelowhavefailedtoappreciatethatthe
mmj 6of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
filingoftheIncomeTaxReturnsisapublicactivityandisamatterofpublic
interest and hence privacy of the Respondent No.3 is not
breached if the
IncomeTaxReturnsareprovidedtotheApplicant.
(iii) That Section 8(1)(j) itself postulates that the larger
public interest
justifiesthedisclosureoftheinformationsoughtbytheApplicantthenthesaid
informationhastobeprovided.Theauthoritiesbelowhavefailedtoappreciate
thereasonwhy the Applicant was seeking the said
informationwhichwas
soughtbyhimbytheapplicationinquestion.
(iv)
Thattheauthoritiesbelowhaveerredinapplyingthejudgmentofthe5
MemberBenchoftheInformationCommissionasalsotheJudgmentofthe
ApexCourtin GirishRamchandraDeshpande'scase
(supra)asthefactsin
thesaidcasesaredistinguishablefromthefactsofthepresentcase.
(v) ThattheJudgmentin GirishRamchandraDeshpande's
case(Supra)
doesnotlaydownanypropositionoflawandthereforecannotbeapplied.
(vi)
ThatthedisclosureoftheinformationsoughtforbytheApplicantwould
beinlargerpublicinterestwhichoutweighsthebreachofprivacyifanyofthe
RespondentNo.3.
mmj 7of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
(vii) That the authorities below failed to consider the
application on the
touchstoneoftheprovisotoSection8(1)(j)ofthesaidActnamelythatthe
informationwhichcannotbedeniedtotheParliamentortheStateLegislature
cannotbedeniedtoacitizen.
(viii)
ThataDivisionBenchofthisCourtinthecaseofSurupSinghNaikVs.
StateofMaharashtra4hasdealtwiththeprovisotoSection8(1)(j)andhas
held in the said case that the information which cannot be
denied to the
ParliamentortheStateLegislaturecannotbedeniedtothecitizen.
(ix) That thedisclosureof theinformation is in largerpublic
interesthas
been demonstrated by the Petitioner by making out a case in the
Appeal
namelythatthesamewouldamounttoreducingcorruptionandincreasingthe
faithintheelectedrepresentatives.
(x) Thatthe judgment in GirishRamchandraDeshpande's case
(supra)
doesnotlaydownanylawandthesaidJudgmentwaspurelybasedonfacts
and circumstances of the case and therefore has no precedential
value.
RelianceissoughttobeplacedonthefollowingjudgmentsoftheApexCourt
(1)(1979)3SupremeCourtCases745inthematterofDalbirSingh&Ors.
Vs.StateofPunjab
4 AIR2007Bom121
mmj 8of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
(2)(1992)1SupremeCourtCases489inthematterofStateofPunjab&Ors.
Vs.SurinderKumar&Ors.
(3)(2002)8SupremeCourtCases361inthematterofS.ShanmugavelNadar
Vs.StateofT.N.&Anr.
(xi)
ThatithasbeenheldinthematterofPUCLVs.UnionofIndia5asalso
inthematterofR.RajgopalaliasR.R.Gopal&Anr.Vs.StateofT.N.&Anr.6
andinthecaseofADRVs.PUCL7thatthepublicinterestelementinvolvedin
divulginginformationrelatingtopublicservants,MP'sandMinistersoutweighs
therighttoprivacy.
SUBMISSIONOFTHELEARNEDCOUNSELMR.MALHOTRAON BEHALF
OFTHERESPONDENTNO.2
(i)
ThattheorderspassedbytheCPIO,theFirstAppellateAuthorityandthe
Central Information Commissioner cannot be faulted with in view
of the
JudgmentoftheApexCourtinthematterof
R.K.JainVs.UnionofIndia&
Anr.8andtheJudgmentofthe5MemberbenchoftheCommissionerwhereby
ithasbeenheldthattheIncomeTaxReturnsfallintheexemptedcategory
underSection8(1)(j)ofthesaidAct.
5 AIR2003SC23636 (1994)6SupremeCourtCases6327 (2002)5SCC2948
(2013)14SupremeCourtCases794
mmj 9of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
(ii)
ThatthePetitionerhasnotbeenabletoconnecttheinformationsought
i.e.theIncomeTaxReturnsoftheRespondentNo.3withanypublicactivityof
theRespondentNo.3andthereforetheauthoritieswererightinrefusingto
providetheinformationtothePetitioner.
SUBMISSIONOFTHELEARNEDSENIORCOUNSELMR.R.M.KADAMON
BEHALFOFTHERESPONDENTNO.3
(i) That from the reason mentioned in the application for
seeking the
information that the Petitioner/Applicant has sought in respect
of the
Respondent No.3 no case of public interest has made out and
hence the
Petitionerhasfailedtodischargetheburdenwhichwouldentitlehimtothe
saidinformation.RelianceisplacedonthejudgmentoftheApexCourtinthe
matterofBiharPublicServiceCommissionVs.SaiyedHussanAbbasRizvi
&Anr.9
(ii) That the information sought namely the Income Tax Returns
of the
RespondentNo.3hasnorelationwithanypublicactivityoftheRespondent
No.3
(iii)
ThatinviewoftheJudgmentoftheApexCourtinGirishRamchandra
Deshpande's case (supra) whichhasbeenreiteratedbytheApexCourt
in
9 (2012)13SCC61
mmj 10of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
R.K.Jain's case(supra),
theinformationrelatingtotheIncomeTaxReturns
fallswithintheexemptedcategoryunderSection8(1)(j)andsincenocaseof
public interest has been made out by the Petitioner, the said
information
cannotbeprovided.Theauthoritiesbelowwerethereforerightinrejectingthe
applicationofthePetitioner.
(iv) That the Judgments on which reliance is placed on behalf of
the
Petitionerhavenorelevanceinthecontextoftheinformationsoughtbythe
PetitionerundertheRighttoInformationAct.TheRighttoInformationActisa
selfcontainedcodeandunlesspublicinterestismadeoutorthatthepublic
interestoutweighstherighttoprivacyoftheRespondentNo.3,theinformation
soughtbythePetitionercannotbeprovided.
(v)
ThattherelianceplacedbythePetitionerontheprovisotoSection8(1)
(j)ismisplacedasthemattercannotbeapproachedfromtheperspectiveand
hypothesisthattheinformationsoughtcannotbedeniedtotheParliamentor
theStateLegislatureand thereforecannotbedenied to thePetitioner.
The
Parliamenthasitsownrulesofbusinessanditcannotbepresumedthatthe
information in respect of Income Tax Returns of a member of the
State
Legislaturewouldbesought.RelianceisplacedonthejudgmentofaLearned
SingleJudgeoftheDelhiHighCourtinthematterofVijayPrakashVs.Union
ofIndia10
10 160(2009)DelhiLawTimes631
mmj 11of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
(vi) ThattheJudgmentinSurupSinghNaik's case(supra)
thoughdealing
withthesaidprovisoisclearlydistinguishableonfactsandthereforethesaid
Judgmenthasnoapplication.
(vii) That the reason given by the Petitioner for seeking the
information
cannot standscrutiny inviewof the fact that under the
Representationof
PeopleAct,1950,ifincorrectinformationisprovidedbyacandidate,thenthe
candidatecanbeprosecutedunderSection125ofthesaidAct.TheParliament
initswisdomhavingdirectedthecandidatetoprovidetheinformationtothe
extentmentionedinthesaidActatthetimeoffilingofthenomination,itisfor
the Parliament to determine if any further information is
required to be
divulged by the candidate for which necessary amendment in
the
RepresentationofPeopleActwouldhavetobemade.Itisthereforenotopen
forthePetitionertocontendthatthePetitionerseekstheinformationsoughtas
hewantstocrosschecktheinformationgivenbytheRespondentNo.3atthe
filingofhisnominationformwiththeIncomeTaxReturns.
(viii)
ThattheElectionCommissionintheinterestofconductingfreeandfair
elections has the power to issue appropriate directions. However
since the
ElectionCommissionhasnotprovidedforfilingofIncomeTax
Returnsthe
said information cannot be sought by having recourse to the
Right to
mmj 12of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
InformationActonthegroundthattheinformationistobecomparedwiththe
informationgivenatthetimeoffilingthenomination.
CONSIDERATION
8 Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, I have
consideredtherivalcontentions.Thequestionthatarisesforconsiderationin
theinstantmatteriswhetherthePetitionerisentitledtotheinformationhe
hassoughtforvidehisapplicationfiledunderthesaidActorwhetherthesaid
informationfallswithintheexemptedcategoryunderSection8(1)(j)ofthe
saidAct.Atthisstage,itwouldnecessarytorefertotheprovisionsofthesaid
Actwhichhaveabearingintheinstantmatter.ThesaidprovisionsareSection
Section8(1)(j)andSection11ofthesaidAct,whichforthesakeofready
referencearereproducedhereinunder:
8. Exemption from disclosure of information. (/)Notwithstanding
anything contained in this
Act,thereshallbenoobligationtogiveanycitizen,
(a) ...........(b) ...........(c) ...........(d) ...........(e)
...........(f) ...........(g) ...........(h) ...........(i)
...........
(j) informationwhich relates to personal
informationthedisclosureofwhichhasnorelationshiptoanypublic
activity or interest, or which would cause
mmj 13of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of theindividual unless the
Central Public
InformationOfficerortheStatePublicInformationOfficerortheappellateauthority,asthecasemaybe,issatisfiedthatthelargerpublicinterestjustifiesthedisclosureofsuchinformation:
Provided that the information which cannot
bedeniedtotheParliamentoraStateLegislatureshallnotbedeniedtoanyperson.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official
SecretsAct,1923(19of1923)noranyoftheexemptionspermissible in
accordance with subsection (/),
apublicauthoritymayallowaccesstoinformation,ifpublicinterestindisclosureoutweighstheharmtotheprotectedinterests.
(3) Subjecttotheprovisionsofclauses(a),(c)
and(i)ofsubsection(/),anyinformationrelatingtoanyoccurrence,eventormatterwhichhastakenplace,occurredorhappenedtwentyyearsbeforethedateonwhichanyrequestismadeundersection6shallbeprovidedtoanypersonmakingarequestunderthatsection:
Providedthatwhereanyquestionarisesastothedatefromwhichthesaidperiodoftwentyyearshasto
be computed, the decision of the CentralGovernment shall be final,
subject to the usualappealsprovidedforinthisAct.
11.Thirdpartyinformation.
(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or
aStatePublicInformationOfficer,asthecasemaybe,intends to disclose
any information or record, orpart thereof on a request made under
this Act,which relates to or has been supplied by a
thirdpartyandhasbeentreatedasconfidentialbythatthirdparty,theCentralPublicInformationOfficeror
mmj 14of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
StatePublicInformationOfficer,asthecasemaybe,shall, within five
days from the receipt of
therequest,giveawrittennoticetosuchthirdpartyoftherequestandofthefactthattheCentralPublicInformation
Officer or State Public
InformationOfficer,asthecasemaybe,intendstodisclosetheinformationorrecord,orpartthereof,andinvitethethird
party to make a submission in writing
ororally,regardingwhethertheinformationshouldbedisclosed, and such
submission of the third
partyshallbekeptinviewwhiletakingadecisionaboutdisclosureofinformation:
Provided that except in the case of trade
orcommercialsecretsprotectedbylaw,disclosuremaybe allowed if the
public interest in disclosureoutweighs in importance any possible
harm orinjurytotheinterestsofsuchthirdparty.
(2) Where a notice is served by the Central PublicInformation
Officer or State Public
InformationOfficer,asthecasemaybe,undersubsection(/)toathirdpartyinrespectofanyinformationorrecordorpartthereof,thethirdpartyshall,withintendaysfromthedateofreceiptofsuchnotice,begiventheopportunity
to make representation against theproposeddisclosure.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7,the Central
Public Information Officer or
StatePublicInformationOfficer,asthecasemaybe,shall,withinfortydaysafterreceiptoftherequestundersection
b, if the third party has been given anopportunity to make
representation under
subsection(2),makeadecisionastowhetherornottodisclose the
informationor recordor part
thereofandgiveinwritingthenoticeofhisdecisiontothethird
(4)
Anoticegivenundersubsection(3)shallincludeastatementthatthethirdpartytowhomthenoticeis
mmj 15of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
givenisentitledtopreferanappealundersection19againstthedecision.
9 Inso far as Section11 is concerned, if the
informationsought
relatestoathirdparty,theCPIOortheStatePublicInformationOfficerasthe
casemaybeiswithin5daysfromthereceiptoftherequestisrequiredtogive
awrittennoticetosuchthirdpartyoftherequestandofthefactthattheCPIO
ortheStatePublicInformationOfficerasthecasemaybeintendstodisclose
theinformationortherecordorpartthereofandinvitedthethirdpartyto
makeasubmissioninwritingororallyregardingwhetherthesaidinformation
shouldbedisclosed.HenceintermsofSection11,thethirdpartyisrequiredto
begivenanoticeandthereplygivenbythethirdpartytotherequestmade
hastobeconsideredbytheInformationOfficerwhilstdecidingtheapplication.
10 InsofarasSection8(1)(j)isconcerned,itrelatestothepersonal
informationofanindividualwhichhasnorelationshiptoanypublicactivityor
interest. The said clause (j) is a part of Section 8 which
contains various
categories of informationwhichareexemptedfromdisclosure. Inso
far as
clause(j)isconcerned,theCPIOortheStatePublicInformationOfficermay
providethesaidinformationtotheinformationseekerifheissatisfiedthat
largerpublicinterestjustifiesthedisclosureofsuchinformation.Theprovisoto
thesaidclause(j)carvesoutanexemptionthattheinformationwhichcannot
bedeniedtotheParliamentortheStateLegislatureshallnotbedeniedtoany
mmj 16of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
person. It is on the touchstone of the aforesaid two provisions
that the
application filed by the Petitioner in the instant matter would
have to be
considered.ThePetitionerinhisapplicationmadeon21112012hassought
theIncomeTaxReturnsofthepreviousthreefinancialyearsoftheRespondent
No.3.ThereasonforwhichtheinformationsoughthasbeenstatedthusThere
isalargerpublicinterestindisclosingthisinformationtocomparehisaffidavit
giventotheElectionCommissionwithhisIncomeTaxReturns.TheCPIOof
theIncomeTaxDepartmentsentanoticetotheRespondentNo.3whoinhis
replyobjectedtotheinformationbeingsuppliedtothePetitioner.Asindicated
hereinabove,thesaidapplicationofthePetitionercametoberejectedbythe
CPIO.Thereasonmentionedintheorderdated212013wastotheeffectthat
theinformationsoughthasnorelationshiptoanypublicactivityorinterestand
itthereforedoesnotqualifyforbringdisclosedinviewofSection8(1)(j)ofthe
saidAct.
11 ThePetitioneraggrievedbythesaidorderdated212013filedan
AppealbeforetheFirstAppellateAuthorityunderSection19ofthesaidAct.
Afterjustifyingthereasonforseekinginformation,thePetitionerinparagraph
(4)ofthesaidAppealhasstatedtothefollowingeffect:
There is a general belief that politicians andelected
representatives are corrupt and
masswealthattheexpenseofthepublic.ThereisalsoacommonbeliefthatIncomeTaxauthoritiesdonotcheckthatITreturnsofthosewhoareelected
mmj 17of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
withtheirdeclaredaffidavitsfiledatthetimeofstandingforelections.Ifthistrue,citizenswillactasmonitorsandhelpcorrectsuchpractices.Ontheotherhandifcitizensapprehensionsarenottrue,itwouldenhancethetrustandrespectfortheelectedrepresentative,whichisnecessaryfora
healthy democracy. Besides it would alsoimprove the Citizens' trust
in the Income Taxdepartment.
HencethePetitionerhadsoughttosupplementthereasongivenin
hisoriginalapplicationbeforetheCPIObymakingageneralstatementinhis
Appealtotheeffectmentionedintheexcerptedportionofparagraph(4)
as
aboveofhisAppeal.ThesaidAppealasindicatedabovewasdismissedbythe
FirstAppellateAuthoritybyitsorderdated522013andthereasonmentioned
bytheCPIOwasreiteratedbytheFirstAppellateAuthority.TheFirstAppellate
AuthorityhasonlybroadenedthegroundmentionedbytheCPIObystating
thatthedisclosureofthesaidinformationwouldcauseunwarrantedinvasion
oftheprivacyoftheconcernedparty.Thegroundmentionedintheapplication
filedbythePetitionerbeforetheCPIOasalsothegroundmentionedinthe
Appeal filedbythePetitionerbeforetheFirst
AppellateAuthorityhasbeen
advertedtosoastoconsiderwhetherthePetitionerhasmadeoutanycasefor
disclosure of the information on the ground of the same being in
public
interest.
12 Atthisstage,itwouldbenecessarytorefertotheJudgmentofthe
mmj 18of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
ApexCourtinGirishRamchandraDeshpande'scase(supra)andR.K.Jain's
case(Supra)asalsothejudgmentofthe5MemberBenchoftheCommission.
In so far as Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case (supra) is
concerned, amongst the information sought by the Petitioner was
the
informationrelatingtothedetailsoftheinvestmentsofthethirdpartyinthe
saidcase,lendingandborrowingfrombanksandotherfinancialinstitutions,
thedetailsofthegiftssaidtohavebeenacceptedbytheRespondentNo.3were
alsosought.TheApexCourtobservedthattheinformationsoughtmostlyfinds
place in the IncomeTaxReturns of the Respondent No.3. TheApex
Court
further observed that the details disclosed by a person in his
Income Tax
Returnsispersonalinformationwhichstandsexemptedfromdisclosureunder
clause(j)ofSection8(1)ofthesaidAct,unlessinvolveslargerpublicinterest
andtheCPIOortheStatePublicInformationOfficerortheAppellateAuthority
is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the
disclosure of such
information. Paragraphs 11 to 13 of the judgment in Girish
Ramchandra
Deshpande'scase(supra)arematerialandarereproducedhereinunder:
11. The petitioner herein sought for copies of allmemos, show
cause notices andcensure/punishment awarded to the
thirdrespondentfromhisemployerandalsodetailsviz.movableandimmovablepropertiesandalsothe
details of his investments, lending andborrowing from Banks and
other financial
mmj 19of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
institutions.Further,hehasalsosoughtforthedetails of gifts
statedto haveacceptedbythethird respondent, his family members
andfriendsandrelativesatthemarriageofhisson.Theinformationmostlysoughtforfindsaplacein
the income tax returns of the
thirdrespondent.Thequestionthathascomeupforconsideration is whether
the
abovementionedinformationsoughtforqualifiestobe"personalinformation"asdefinedinclause(j)ofSection8(1)oftheRTIAct.
12.
WeareinagreementwiththeCICandthecourtsbelowthatthedetailscalledforbythepetitioneri.e.
copies of all memos issued to the thirdrespondent, showcause
notices and orders ofcensure/punishment etc. are qualified to
bepersonalinformationasdefinedinclause(j)ofSection8(1)oftheRTIAct.Theperformanceofan
employee/officer in an organization isprimarily a matter between
the employee andthe employer and normally those aspects
aregovernedbytheserviceruleswhichfallunderthe expression "personal
information", thedisclosureofwhichhasnorelationshiptoanypublic
activityorpublic interest. Ontheotherhand, the disclosure of which
would causeunwarranted invasion of privacy of thatindividual. Of
course, in a given case, if
theCentralPublicInformationOfficerortheStatePublic Information
Officer of the AppellateAuthority is satisfied that the larger
publicinterest justifies the disclosure of
suchinformation,appropriateorderscouldbepassedbutthepetitionercannotclaimthosedetailsasamatterofright.
13. Thedetailsdisclosedbyapersoninhisincometax returns are"
personal information"
whichstandexemptedfromdisclosureunderclause(j)ofSection8(1)oftheRTIAct,unlessinvolvesa
mmj 20of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
larger public interest and the Central PublicInformation Officer
or the State
PublicInformationOfficerortheAppellateAuthorityissatisfiedthatthe
largerpublic interest justifiesthedisclosureofsuchinformation.
13 InsofarastheJudgmentinR.K.Jain'scase(supra)isconcerned,
thefactswereidenticalasthefactsinGirishRamchandraDeshpande'scase
inasmuchastheinformationrelatingtotheservicerecordofthethirdparty
wassoughtbythePetitionerwhichwasdeniedonthegroundthatthesameis
personalinformationwhichstandsexemptedunderSection8(1)(j)ofthesaid
Act. The Apex Court referred to the Judgment in Girish
Ramchandra
Deshpande'scase (supra)andespecially
paragraphs11to13thereofand
thereafter concluded that the said information could not be
provided and
accordinglyaffirmedtheJudgmentoftheDivisionBenchoftheHighCourt.
Paragraph21ofthesaidreportismaterialandisreproducedhereinunder:
21. Inviewof thediscussionmadeaboveandthe decision in this Court
Girish RamchandraDeshpande,astheappellantsoughtforinspectionof the
documents relating to the ACR of theMember, CESTAT, inter alia
relating to
adverseentriesintheACRandthefollowupactiontakenthereinonthequestionof
integritywefindnoreasontointerferewiththeimpugnedjudgmentpassedbytheDivisionBenchwherebytheorderpassed
by the learned Single Judge wasaffirmed.
mmj 21of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
14 In so far as the Judgment of the 5 Member Bench of the
Commissionisconcerned,the5MemberBenchhaswhilstdecidingtheAppeal
has referred to various Judgments of the Commission and
thereafter has
concluded that the Income Tax Returns fall in the category of
personal
informationandisthereforeexemptedunderSection8(1)(j)ofthesaidAct.
15 HencewhatflowsfromtheJudgmentsoftheApexCourtisthat
the Income Tax Returns constitute personal information and are
exempted
fromdisclosureunderSection8(1)(j)andthatthesaidpersonalinformation
canonlybedivulgediftheCPIOortheStatePublicInformationOfficerreaches
a conclusion that it would be in the larger public interest to
reveal such
information.Intheinstantcase,thereasonsetforthinthefirstapplication
filedbythePetitionerbeforethePublicInformationOfficerhardlymakesouta
casefortheinformationtobedisclosedonthegroundofpublicinterest.Inso
far as the ground made out in the Appeal filed before the First
Appellate
Authorityisconcerned,thePetitionerhassoughttomakeageneralstatement
whichdoesnotspecificallyrelatetotheRespondentNo.3.ThePetitionerhas
alsosoughttojustifytheinformationsoughtonthegroundthattheIncome
TaxauthoritiesdonotchecktheIncomeTaxReturnsofthosewhoareelected
withtheirdeclaredaffidavitsfiledatthetimeofstandingforelections.The
saidgroundalsodoesnotmakeoutanycaseoftherebeinganypublicinterest
involvedinthedisclosureoftheinformationsoughtbythePetitionerbywayof
mmj 22of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
theIncomeTaxReturnsoftheRespondentNo.3fortheprecedingthreeyears.
ThePetitionerisinfactseekingtheinformationbyquestioningthemannerin
whichtheIncomeTaxDepartmentfunctions.SincethePetitionerisseeking
informationrelatingto
theRespondentNo.3thePetitionerwasrequiredto
demonstrate as to how the disclosure of the information relating
to the
RespondentNo.3wouldservepublicinterest.Asindicatedabove,thePetitioner
hasmadeageneralandsweepingstatementwhichcanhardlybesaidtosatisfy
thetestofdisclosurebeingmadeinpublicinterest.
ThePetitionerhassoughttoassailtherelianceplacedbytheCIC
on the judgment in GirishRamchandraDeshpande's case (supra) on
the
groundthatthesamedoesnotlaydownanylawandthatthesamehasbeen
renderedwithoutconsideringthejudgmentoftheApexCourtinPUCL'scase
and R.Rajgopal's case (supra). In the context of the challenge
to the
applicability of the judgment in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's
case is
concerned,itwouldbenecessarytorevisitthefactsinvolvedinthesaidcase.
Inthesaidcase,asindicatedabovetheinformationsoughtwasrelatingtothe
service record of the Respondent No.3 in the said Petition as
also the
informationrelatingtotheinvestments,loansandborrowingfrombanksand
otherfinancialinstitutions.Insofarastheinformationrelatingtotheservice
recordoftheRespondentNo.3isconcerned,theApexCourtobservedthatthe
samewouldbegovernedbyservicerulesandisamatterbetweentheemployer
mmj 23of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
andtheemployeeandthattheinformationfallswithintheexpressionpersonal
information, disclosure of which according to the Apex Court had
no
relationshiptoanypublicactivityorpublic
interestandontheotherhand
wouldcauseunwarrantedinvasionoftheprivacyofthatindividual.Insofaras
the information sought by the Petitioner / Applicant relating to
the
investments,loansandborrowingfrombanks,theApexCourtheldthatthe
samebeingpart of the IncomeTaxReturns, is personal
informationwhich
standsexemptedfromthedisclosureunderSubSection(j)ofSection8(1)of
thesaidAct.TheApexCourtasindicatedaboveafterhavingrecordedthesaid
findingfurtherobservedthatinagivencaseiftheCPIOortheStatePublic
InformationOfficerortheAppellateAuthorityissatisfiedthatthelargerpublic
interestjustifiesthedisclosureofsuchinformationappropriateorderscouldbe
passed,butthePetitionercannotclaimthesaiddetailsasamatterofright.
HencetheApexCourtinGirishRamchandraDeshpande's
case(Supra)was
directlyconcernedwithSection8(1)(j)ofthesaidActandexemptionfrom
disclosurecoveredbythesaidprovision,itisinthesaidcontextthattheApex
CourtmadeobservationsandrecordedafindingthatthedetailsintheIncome
TaxReturnsispersonalinformationandcanbedisclosedonlyifpublicinterest
so warrants. The Apex Court thereby laid down a proposition that
the
informationcoveredbyclause8(1)(j)isanexemptedinformationandcanbe
disclosedonlyiftheCPIOortheAppellateAuthorityissatisfiedthatitwould
beinthepublicinteresttodoso.HencethecontentionurgedbytheLearned
mmj 24of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
Counsel for the Petitioner that the judgment in Girish
Ramchandra
Deshpande'scase(supra)laydownanylawhastoberejected.Inmyviewthe
relianceplacedbythePetitioneronthejudgmentsoftheApexCourtreported
in1979(3)SupremeCourtCase745,1992(1)SupremeCourtCases489and
(2002) 8 Supreme Court Cases 361 to contend that Girish
Ramchandra
Deshapande's case (supra) does not lay down any law, is
thoroughly
misplaced,asthesaidjudgmentshavebeenrenderedinthefactualcontext
prevailinginthesaidcases.HenceinsofaraswhethertheIncomeTaxReturns
fallintheexemptedcategorytheissuehasbeenconcludedbytheApexCourt
in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case, which has been fetched
in
R.K.Jain'scase(supra).
16 SincethePetitionerseemstobebasinghiscaseonthepurityof
electionsandprobityinpubliclife,beforeadvertingtothetwojudgmentsof
theApexCourtinthetwoPUCLcases,itwouldbenecessarytorefertothe
relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act,
1950. By the
amendment carriedout in theyear 2002,
Section33Aand33Bhavebeen
introducedintheRepresentationofthePeopleAct.IntermsofSection33A,a
candidateshallapartfromanyinformationwhichheisrequiredtofurnishin
hisnominationhasalsotofurnishinformationastowhetherheisaccusedof
anyoffencepunishablewithimprisonmentfortwoyearsormoreinapending
caseinwhichachargehasbeenframed,whetherhehasbeenconvictedofan
mmj 25of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
offence, the candidate has to submit an affidavit in the
prescribed from
verifying the information specified in subsection(1).
Thereturningofficer
aftertheinformationis
furnishedtohimundersubsection(1)displaysthe
saidinformationbydisplayingacopyofthesaidaffidavitataconspicuous
placeinhisoffice.Section33Bprovidesthatnocandidateisliabletodisclose
orfurnishanysuchinformationinrespectofhiselectionwhichisnotrequired
tobedisclosedorfurnishedundertheActortherulesmadethereunder.
Section125Awhichhasalsobeenintroducedbytheamendment
oftheyear2002providesforprosecutionifthecandidatefailstofurnishthe
information specified in Section 33A or gives false information
which he
knowsorhasreasontobelievetobefalse.Henceareadingoftheaforesaid
provisionsdisclosethattohavefreeandfairelectionsandtobringpurityinthe
electoralprocessinthecountryandtobringprobityinpubliclifethatcertain
electoralreformswereintroducedwhicharenowreflectedintheframingof
Section33AandSection125AoftheRepresentationofthePeopleAct.Hence
the Parliament has provided for disclosure of information
relating to the
candidatetotheextentmentionedinSection33A.Theplenarypowerofthe
ElectionCommissionofIndiatoissuedirectionsforafreeandfairconductof
theelectionscannotbedoubted,iftheElectionCommissionisoftheopinion
thatsomefurtherdirectionsarerequiredtobe issuedtosee to it that
the
electionsarefreeandfairundoubtedlyhasthepowerstoissuethedirections.
mmj 26of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
However since the Parliament has deemed it appropriate to limit
the
informationinrespectofthecandidatetotheextentmentionedinSection33A,
itisnotopenforacitizentocontendthatheseekscertaininformationtocross
checktheinformationwhichhasbeenrevealedbythecandidateatthetimeof
filingofhisnomination.Iftheinformationfurnishedbyacandidateisfalse,he
canbeprosecutedunderSection125AofthesaidAct.Intheinstantcase,as
indicated above, the Petitioner has sought information to cross
check the
information furnished by the Respondent No.3 at the time of
filing of his
nominationwithhisIncomeTaxReturnsthesaidreasoncanthereforehardly
saidtosatisfythetestofthesamebeinginpublicinterest.Theinformation
soughtalsohasnoconnectionwithanypublicactivityoftheRespondentNo.3.
ThePetitionerpossiblybeingawareofthesaidpositionhasthereforesoughtto
contendthatfilingoftheIncomeTaxReturnsisapublicactivity.
Iamafraid
thesaidcontentionisthoroughlymisconceivedasfilingofIncomeTaxReturns
canbe nostretchof imaginationbe said to be a public activity,
but is an
obligationwhichacitizenowestotheStateviz.topayhistaxesandsincethe
saidinformationisheldbytheIncomeTaxDepartmentinafiduciarycapacity,
thesamecannotbedirectedtoberevealedunlesstheprerequisitesforthe
samearesatisfied.
17 Now coming to the judgment in P.U.C.L. and another's case
(supra). The said judgment concerns the directions issued by the
Election
mmj 27of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
CommissionofIndiaunderArticle324oftheConstitutionofIndia.TheApex
Court has summedup the legal andconstitutional position which
emerges
fromthedirectionsissuedbytheElectionCommissionofIndiainParagraph46
ofthesaidjudgment.Paragraph46ofthesaidjudgment,isforthesakeof
readyreferencereproducedhereinunder:
46 To sum up the legal and constitutional positionwhichemerges
fromtheaforesaiddiscussion, it canbestatedthat:
1. ThejurisdictionoftheElectionCommissioniswideenoughto
includeall
powersnecessaryforsmoothconductofelectionsandtheword`electionsisusedin
a wide sense to include the entire process ofelection which
consists of several stages andembracesmanysteps.
2.
ThelimitationonplenarycharacterofpoweriswhentheParliamentorStateLegislaturehasmadeavalidlawrelatingtoorinconnectionwithelections,theCommissionisrequiredtoactinconformitywiththesaidprovisions.Incasewherelawissilent,Articleisareservoirofpowertoactfortheavowedpurposeofhavingfreeandfairelection.ConstitutionhastakencareofleavingscopeforexerciseofresiduarypowerbytheCommissioninitsownrightasacreatureoftheConstitutioninthe
infinitevarietyofsituationsthat may emerge from time to time in a
largedemocracy, as every contingency could not
beforeseenoranticipatedby theenacted lawsor therules. By issuing
necessary directions, Commissioncan fill the vacuum till there is
legislation on thesubject. In Kanhiya Lal Omar's case, the
Courtconstrued the expressions superintendence,directionandcontrol
in Article 324 (1) andheldthat a direction may mean an order issued
to
aparticularindividualorapreceptwhichmayhavetofollowanditmaybespecificorageneralorderand
mmj 28of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
such phrase should be construed liberallyempowering the election
commission to issue suchorders.
3. Thewordelections includestheentireprocessofelection which
consists of several stages and
itembracesmanysteps,someofwhichmayhaveanimportant bearing on the
process of choosing acandidate. Fair election contemplates
disclosure
bythecandidateofhispastincludingtheassetsheldbyhimsoastogiveaproperchoicetothecandidateaccording
to his thinking and opinion. As statedearlier, in Common Cause case
(supra) the
Courtdealtwithacontentionthatelectionsinthecountryarefoughtwiththehelpofmoneypowerwhichisgathered
from black sources and once elected
topower,itbecomeseasytocollecttonsofblackmoney,whichisusedforretainingpowerandforreelection.Ifonaffidavitacandidateisrequiredtodisclosetheassetsheldbyhimatthetimeofelection,votercandecidewhetherhecouldbereelectedevenincasewherehehascollectedtonsofmoney.Presuming,ascontendedbythelearnedseniorcounselMr.AshwiniKumar,thatthisconditionmaynotbemucheffectiveforbreakingaviciouscirclewhichhaspollutedthebasicdemocracyinthecountyastheamountwouldbeunaccounted.Maybetrue,stillthiswouldhaveitsowneffectasastepinaidandvotersmaynotelectlawbreakers
as lawmakers and some flowers ofdemocracymayblossom.
4.
Tomaintainthepurityofelectionsandinparticulartobringtransparencyintheprocessofelection,theCommission
can ask the candidates about
theexpenditureincurredbythepoliticalpartiesandthistransparency in
process of election would
includetransparencyofacandidatewhoseekselectionorreelection.Inademocracy,theelectoralprocesshasastrategicrole.ThelittlemanofthiscountrywouldhavebasicelementaryrighttoknowfullparticularsofacandidatewhoistorepresenthiminParliament
mmj 29of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
wherelawstobindhislibertyandpropertymaybeenacted.
5. The right to get information in democracy isrecognized all
throughout and it is natural
rightflowingfromtheconceptofdemocracy.Atthisstage,we would refer to
Article 19[1] ad [2] of theInternational Covenant of Civil
andPolitical Rightswhichisasunder:
1.
Everyoneshallhavetherighttoholdopinionswithoutinterference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to
freedomofexpression;thisrightshallincludefreedomtoseek,receiveandimpartinformationandideasof
all kinds, regardless of frontiers,
eitherorally,inwritingorinprint,intheformofart,orthroughanyothermediaofhischoice.
6. Cumulativereadingofplethoraof decisionsof
thisCourtasreferredto,itisclearthatifthefieldmeantfor legislature
and executive is left
unoccupieddetrimentaltothepublicinterest,thisCourtwouldhaveample
jurisdictionunderArticle 32readwithArticles 141 and 142 of the
Constitution to issuenecessary directions to the Executive to
subservepublicinterest.
7.
UnderourConstitution,Article19(1)(a)providesforfreedomofspeechandexpression.Votersspeechorexpressionincaseofelectionwouldincludecastingofvotes,thatistosay,voterspeaksoutorexpressesbycastingvote.Forthispurpose,informationaboutthe
candidate to be selected is must. Voter's (littlemancitizen's)
right to knowantecedents
includingcriminalpastofhiscandidatecontestingelectionforMPorMLAismuchmorefundamentalandbasicforsurvivalofdemocracy.Thelittlemanmaythinkoverbeforemakinghischoiceofelectinglawbreakersaslawmakers.
mmj 30of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
18 InsofarasthenextjudgmentoftheApexCourtin P.U.C.L.and
another's case (supra) is concerned, the Apex Court was
considering the
challengeraisedtoSection33BoftheRepresentationofthePeopleAct.The
ApexCourtwasconsideringthedisclosureofinformationbyacandidateunder
Section33AofthesaidActinthecontextoftherighttoprivacywhichis
protectedunderArticle21oftheConstitutionofIndia.Theobservationsofthe
ApexCourtinparagraph49ofthesaidjudgmentarematerialandareforthe
sakeofreadyreferencereproducedhereinunder:
49 It
istobestatedthattheElectionCommissionhasfromtimetotimeissuedinstructions/orderstomeetwiththesituationwherethefieldisunoccupiedbythelegislation.Hence,thenormsandmodalitiestocarryoutandgiveeffecttotheaforesaiddirectionsshould
be drawn up properly by the ElectionCommission as early as possible
and in any casewithintwomonths.
19 Inmyview,theaforesaidjudgmentscanhardlyfurtherthecaseof
the Petitioner to contend that since the Respondent No.3 being a
people's
representative,hisrighttoprivacywouldnotbeaffectedif
theinformation
sought by the Petitioner is disclosed. The Apex Court has made
the
observationsthatithasmadehavingregardtotheamendedprovisionsofthe
Representation of People Act, and the said observations cannot
be applied
whilst consideringthe provisionsof thesaidAct, which is a self
contained
code.
mmj 31of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
20 ThePetitionerhasalsosoughttoplacerelianceonthejudgmentof
the Apex Court in R Rajagopal's case (supra). The said judgment
also
concernstherighttoprivacyunderArticle21oftheConstitutionofIndiaand
thecaseconcernsthepublicationoftheautobiographyofone
AutoShankar
whowasconvictedfor6murdersandwassentencedtodeathandwhohad
writtenhisautobiographyinjailandhashandedoverthesametohiswifewith
theknowledgeandapprovalofthejailauthoritiesforbeingdeliveredtohis
advocatewitharequesttopublishthesameinthePetitioner'smagazine.It
seems the autobiographydepicteda close nexus between the
prisoner and
severalIASandIPSandotherofficerssomeofwhomwereallegedtobehis
partners inseveral crimes.
ThePetitionerhaddecidedtocommenceserial
publicationoftheautobiographyandannouncedthesameintheirmagazine.
TheInspectorGeneralofPrisonswrotealettertothePetitionersallegingthat
the serial in question was not written by Auto Shankar and
asking the
Petitionerstostoppublishingthesameforthwith.ThequestionthattheApex
Courtframedwas,doessuchanauthorisedwritinginfringesthecitizen'sright
toprivacy.TheApexCourtinParagraph26laiddownthebroadprinciplesin
sofarastherighttoprivacyisconcernedquatherighttopublish.TheApex
Courtinclause(2)ofParagraph26hasobservedthatexceptiontotherightof
privacyisthatthepublicationbecomesunobjectionableifsuchpublicationis
based upon the public records including Court records. The Apex
Court
mmj 32of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
justifiedtheobservationbystatingthatonceamatterbecomesamatterof
public record, the right to privacy no longer subsists and it
becomes a
legitimatesubjectforcommentbypressandmediaamongothers.Inmyview,
thesaidjudgmentdoesnotfurtherthecaseofthePetitionerinseekingthe
informationsoughtonthegroundthatnorightofprivacyoftheRespondent
No.3isaffected,infactthesaidjudgmentsupportsthecaseoftheRespondent
No.3astheApexCourthasobservedthattherighttoprivacywouldhaveto
givewayifwhatispublishedisfrompublicrecords.Intheinstantcase,the
recordsmaintainedbytheIncomeTaxDepartmentinrespectofanindividual
whoisanassesseebeforeitcannotbesaidtobeapublicrecordasitiswell
settledthattheIncomeTaxDepartmentholdsthesaidrecordsinafiduciary
capacity.
21 ThelearnedcounselforthePetitionerhassoughttoplacereliance
onthejudgmentofalearnedSingleJudgeofthisCourtreportedinthematter
ofKashinathJ.Shetyevs.DinshVaghela 11
.Inthelightofthejudgmentsof
theApexCourtinGirishRamchandraDeshpande'scasealsoR.K.Jain'scase
which judgments of the Apex Court are latter in point of time.
The said
judgmentofalearnedSingleJudgeofthisCourtstandsimpliedlyoverruled.
22 TheexemptionunderSection8(1)(j)ofthesaidActhadcomeup
for consideration before the Apex Court recently in Bihar Public
Service
11 2009(0)AIJMH146009
mmj 33of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
Commission'sCase(supra).TheApexCourtafterobservingthatinformation
whichrelatestopersonalinformationrecordedbySection8(1)(j)ofthesaid
Act stands exempted and can be disclosed only if the public
interest so
warrants,hasthereafterheldthatthesaidexemptionisastatutoryexemption
whichmustoperateasaruleandonlyinexceptionalcases,woulddisclosure
bepermittedthattooforreasonstoberecordeddemonstratingsatisfactionto
thetestoflargerpublicinterest.Insofarasthecompetingclaimsbetween
largerpublicinterestandtheinvasionofprivacy,theobservationsoftheApex
Courtinparagraph23ofthesaidjudgmentarematerialandarereproduced
hereinunder:
23 Thesatisfactionhastobearrivedatbytheauthorities objectively
and the consequences
ofsuchdisclosurehavetobeweighedwithregardtothecircumstancesof a
givencase.
Thedecisionhastobebasedonobjectivesatisfactionrecordedforensuringthatlargerpublicinterestoutweighsunwarrantedinvasionofprivacyorotherfactorsstated
in the provision. Certain matters,particularly, in relation to
appointment, arerequired to be dealt with great
confidentiality.Theinformationmaycometoknowledgeoftheauthorityasaresultofdisclosurebyotherswhogive
that information in confidence and
withcompletefaith,integrityandfidelity. Secrecyofsuch information
shall be maintained,
thus,briningitwithintheambitoffiduciarycapacity.Similarly,theremaybecaseswherethedisclosurehas
no relationship to any public activity orinterest or it may even
cause unwarrantedinvasionof privacyof the individual.
Ontheseprotections have to be given their dueimplementation as they
spring from statutoryexemptions. It is not a decision
simpliciterbetweenprivateinterestandpublicinterest.Itis
mmj 34of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
a matter where a constitutional protection
isavailabletoapersonwithregardtotherighttoprivacy. Thus, the public
interest has to beconstrued while keeping in mind the balancefactor
between right to privacy and right toinformation with the purpose
sought to
beachievedandthepurposethatwouldbeservedinthelargerpublicinterest,particularlywhenboththese
rights emerged from the
constitutionalvaluesundertheConstitutionofIndia.
Sincetherighttoprivacyhasbeenrecognizedasafundamental
righttowhichacitizenisentitledto,therefore,unlesstheconditionmentioned
inSection8(1)(j)issatisfied,theinformationcannotbeprovided.Hencethe
burdenontheApplicantismuchmoreonerousthanmaybearoutinecase.As
indicated in the earlier part of this judgment the
reasonmentioned in the
originalapplicationassupplementedbythegroundsintheFirstAppealhardly
makeoutacaseofpublicinterest.Henceintheinstantcase,thesaidburden
cannotsaidtohavebeendischargedbythePetitioner.Hencethefindingofthe
FirstAppellateAuthorityaswellastheCICthatthePetitionerhasnotmade
outanycasefordisclosureoftheinformationonthegroundofpublicinterest
cannotbefaultedwith.
23 The Petitioner has sought to place reliance on the proviso
to
Section8(1)(j)ofthesaidActandhassoughttocontendthattheauthorities
belowhavenotconsideredtheapplicationofthePetitioneronthetouchstone
of the said Proviso. It was the submission of the learnedcounsel
for the
mmj 35of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
PetitionerbasedonthesaidprovisothatthePetitionerwouldhavetofurnish
thesaidinformationhavingregardtotheprovisoastheinformationsoughtby
thePetitionercannotbedeniedtotheParliamentortheStateLegislature.In
supportofthesaidcontentionthePetitionerhassoughttoplacerelianceonthe
judgmentofaDivisionBenchofthisCourtinSurupSinghNaik'scase(supra).
InsofarasthesaidjudgmentoftheDivisionBenchisconcerned,towhichthis
Courtwasaparty,nodoubtinthesaidjudgmentprovisotoSection8(1)(j)
was in contention and the Division Bench of this Court had
allowed the
application filed by the Petitioner seeking information relating
to the
hospitalizationofthePetitionerSurupSinghNaikwhichwasdeniedbythe
authorities below. However, the proviso was applied in the facts
that were
prevailinginthesaidcase.ThefactsinthesaidcasewasthatthePetitioner
SurupSinghNaikwasaMinisterintheStateGovernmentattherelevanttime
whowaspunishedforcontemptofcourtbytheApexCourtbyjudgmentdated
10052006andwastoundergoimprisonmentforonemonth. Itseemsthat
thePetitionersurrenderedtothepoliceinMumbaion12052006.On1405
2006thePetitionerwasshiftedtooneoftheGovernmentHospitalsi.e.theSir
JJHospitalonaccountofsuspectedheartproblemaswellaslowsugarand
bloodpressure.TheRespondentNo.5inthesaidPetitionwhowasaprivate
citizenhadbyhisapplicationdated27052006soughtinformationfromthe
CPIOofthesaidSirJJHospitalofthemedicalreportsofthePetitioner.Inhis
applicationitwassetoutthatitwasinpublicinterest
toknowaboutwhya
mmj 36of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
convictisallowedtostayintheairconditionedcomfortofthehospitaland
therehadbeenintensivequestioningaboutthisaspectinthemediaandthe
peoplesmind,andthatthereis,
therefore,alegitimatedoubtaboutthetrue
reasonsfortheconvictbeingaccommodatedinairconditionedcomfortofthe
hospital.TheCPIOdidnotfurnishthenecessaryinformation.TheRespondent
No.5thereafterfiledanAppealbeforetheRespondentNo.3whichalsodidnot
meetwithanysuccess.
TheRespondentNo.5thereforepreferredaSecond
Appeal before the Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 i.e.
Second
Appellate Authorityallowed theAppeal anddirected the information
tobe
provided to the Respondent No.5 which order was challenged
before the
DivisionBenchofthisCourtbywayofthesaidWritPetition.TheDivision
Benchcrystallizedthequestionthatitwasrequiredtoanswernamelytheright
ofanindividualtokeepcertainmattersconfidentialontheonehandandright
ofthepublictobeinformedontheotherconsideringtheprovisionsofthesaid
Act.
TheDivisionBenchobservedthatitwasconcernedwithacasewherea
personconvictedforcontemptofcourt,doessuchapersonduringtheperiod
of incarceration, claimprivilege or confidentially in respect of
the medical
recordsmaintainedbyapublicauthority.
TheDivisionBenchconsideredthe
issue on the touchstone of the proviso and recorded a finding
that such
informationnormallycannotbedeniedtoParliamentortheStateLegislature
unlessthepersonwhoopposesthereleaseoftheinformationmakesoutacase
thatsuchinformationisnotavailabletoParliamentortheStateLegislation
mmj 37of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
undertheAct.
TheDivisionBenchwentontoobservethathavingregardto
theplenarypowerswhichthelegislatureenjoys,suchinformationcannotbe
deniedtoParliamentorStatelegislaturebyanypublicauthority.TheDivision
Bench concluded that the records of the institution i.e. Sir J J
Group of
Hospitals,therefore,,oughttobemadeavailabletoParliamentortheState
Legislature.TheParliament/Legislatureand/oritsCommitteesareentitledto
therecordseveniftheybeconfidentialorpersonalrecordsofapatient.Hence
thejudgmentoftheDivisionBenchofthisCourtwasrevolvingaroundthe
factsinthesaidcase,whereaMinisterinOfficewaspunishedforContemptof
Court andwas admitted to a Government Hospital andwas being
treated
therein and the suspicion was that he had got himself admitted
to avoid
incarceration.
Thesaidjudgment,inmyview,cannotbeextendedtomean
thatanyandeveryinformationistobeprovidedtotheParliamentortheState
Legislature.ThishastobeviewedinthecontextofthefactsofSurupSingh
Naik'scase(supra)whereintheDivisionBenchofthisCourtwasoftheview
thattheinformationrelatingtothepatientSurupSinghNaikcouldnothave
beendeniedtotheParliamentorStateLegislature.Inmyview,therefore,the
judgmentoftheDivisionBenchofthisCourtdoesnotinanymannerfurther
thecaseofthePetitionerbasedontheprovisotoSection8(1)(j)ofthesaid
Act.
24 TheprovisotoSection8(1)(j)hadalsocomeupforconsideration
mmj 38of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
beforeaLearnedSingleJudgeoftheDelhiHighCourtinVijayPrakash'scase
(supra). Before The Learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court
the
JudgmentoftheDivisionBenchofthisCourtwascited.TheLearnedSingle
JudgeobservedthatheisunpersuadedbythereasoningofthisCourtwhich
appearstohavegivenundue,evenoverwhelmingdeferencetoParliamentary
privilege.TheLearnedSingleJudgeobservedthatwerethatthetrueposition,
theenactmentofSection8(1)(j)woulditselfberenderedmeaninglessandthe
basic safeguardbereft of content. TheLearnedJudgeconcludedthat
if the
provisoistobeinterpretedinamannerthattheParliamenthastherightto
demandany information then there would be nothing left to the
right to
privacywhichhasbeenelevatedtothestatusofafundamentalrightbyseveral
judgmentsoftheSupremeCourt.
25 In my view therefore, the proviso cannot be sought to be
interpretedinthemannerwhichtheLearnedCounselforthePetitionerseeks
todo.
Thereisalsoabasicfallacyinthecontentionraisedonbehalfofthe
Petitioner. The Petitioner wants to proceed on the hypothesis
that the
informationsoughtbyhimcannotbedeniedtotheParliament.Insofarasthe
Parliamentisconcerned,theParliamenthasitsownrulesofbusinessandit
thereforecannotbepresumedthattheinformationinrespectoftheIncome
TaxReturnsofaMemberofLegislaturewouldbesought. Thesamewould
undoubtedly be in the discretion of the Honourable Speaker. In
the said
mmj 39of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
-
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
wp875313(reserve)
context,itisalsorelevanttorefertoSection75AoftheRepresentationofthe
PeopleActunderwhicheveryelectedcandidateforaHouseofParliamenthas
tofurnishinformationrelatingtothemovableandimmovableproperty,
his
liabilities to any public financial institution, his liabilities
to the Central
GovernmentortheStateGovernmenttotheChairmanoftheCouncilofStates
ortheSpeakeroftheHouseofthePeoplei.e.LoksabhaortheChairmanofthe
CounciloftheStatei.e.Rajyasabha.Hencethereareadequateprovisionsinthe
RepresentationofthePeopleActunderwhichtheinformationsoughtistobe
providedtotheParliamenttotheextentmentionedinthesaidprovisionsand
therefore reliance cannot be placed on the proviso to Section
8(1)(j) to
contendthattheexemptionprovidedinthesaidSectionwouldnotoperate.
26 Forthereasonsaforestatedtheimpugnedorderdated1552013
passedbytheCentralInformationCommissioner,confirmingtheorderspassed
by the First Appellate Authority and the CPIO does not suffer
from any
illegalityorinfirmityforthiscourttointerfereinitsWritJurisdiction.TheWrit
Petitionis
accordinglydismissed.Ruledischargedwithpartiestobeartheir
respectivecosts.
[R.M.SAVANT,J]
mmj 40of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::