RTI| Disclosure Of Employees’ Institute Or University Name Is Not In “Larger Public Interest: Delhi HC Upholds CIC Order

The Court said that the information seeker/Appellant was unable to demonstrate any larger public interest in such disclosure of information. Disclosing it would have caused the unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individuals.

The Court was hearing an appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act, 1866 seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment that dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant.

The bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “The refusal was in respect of the names of the Institutes/Universities from where the incumbents had obtained their technical qualifications/degrees. We find that this information is personal to the said incumbents who had cleared or obtained degrees from such Institutes/Universities and had no relevance so far as the appellant is concerned.”

Brief Facts-

The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information from the Power Finance Corporation Limited (PFC) about its recruitment policy, manpower requirement budget, and details of executives recruited from 2010 to 2015. The PFC provided the requested policy and budget information but denied detailed educational backgrounds. The Appellate Authority dismissed the Appellant’s Appeal after which he filed a second appeal to the CIC. The CIC ruled that University names were personal information exempt under Section 8(1)(j) but directed the PFC to provide educational qualifications and the certified manpower budget. Subsequently, the Appellant's Writ Petition regarding the same was also dismissed, prompting the present Appeal.

The Court mentioned the decision of the Delhi High Court in Ravi Prakash Soni vs. Central Information Commission and Ors., LPA 523/2024 and quoted, “The words “larger public interest” would, in our view, have an impact on a broad section of the society and not individual interests or conflicts. It cannot be defined in a straight-jacket formula and has to be interpreted on a case-to-case basis. Suffice it to say that the appellant has not been able to demonstrate, in the facts of the case, as to what that “larger public interest” would be.”

To answer the argument regarding the divergence in the opinion of the two Authorities for refusal of information, where the CPIO refused on the ground of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act and the CIC rejected the second appeal on the grounds of exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act the Court said, “as an appellate forum, the CIC examined as to whether such information was exempted under the provisions of RTI Act. It appears to be on such examination that the CIC found that the information sought would invade private rights of third parties and as such would fall within the mischief of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.”

Therefore, according to the Court, the divergence, if at all, is inconsequential as the Appellate Authority has come to the correct conclusion.

Accordingly, the Court observed, “disclosure of such information was clearly not in the larger public interest and the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act has been correctly invoked by the CIC and rightly upheld by the Single Judge.”

Finally, the Court dismissed the present Appeal.