Delhi High Court clarification: Disclosure of interest necessary when personal information sought under RTI Act

Delhi High Court clarification: Disclosure of interest necessary when personal information sought under RTI Act

The Delhi High Court on 29th January, 2021 clarified that whenever 'personal information' is sought under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act), disclosure of interest in the information sought is necessary in the case of Har Kishan v. President Secretariat.

Justice Prathiba M Singh issued a clarification to the effect after noting that the verdict delivered on 12thJanuary, 2021 was being 'wrongly interpreted'.

The Court stated that paragraph 12 of the order would be read as follows:

"…Court is of the opinion that whenever personal information is sought under the RTI Act, disclosure of an interest in the information sought would be necessary to establish the bonafides of the applicant".

The paragraph originally read that, "whenever information is sought under the RTI Act, disclosure of an interest in the information sought would be necessary to establish the bonafides of the applicant. Non-disclosure of the same could result in injustice to several other affected persons, whose information is sought."

The brief background of the case was the petitioner (Har Kishan), approached the Court to sought information under the RTI Act in respect of appointments made for Multi-Tasking Staff at the Presidential Estate, Rashtrapati Bhawan.

Even though the information with respect to the notification, total number of candidates, examination centre etc was furnished and provided to the petitioner. However, information with respect to personal details of all selected candidates was refused by Central Information Commission (CIC).

The personal details included residential addresses and the father's names of the selected candidates.

The Court while deciding the matter, noted that the petitioner's daughter had also applied for appointment to the Multi-Tasking Staff at Rashtrapati Bhawan but this fact was not mentioned in the writ petition.

"The present writ petition is cleverly quiet about the fact that the Petitioner's daughter had applied for being considered for appointment for the post of Multi-Tasking Staff at the Rashtrapati Bhawan. The seeking of the above information, especially after the Petitioner's daughter did not obtain employment, clearly points to some ulterior motives", the Court had highlighted.

The Court ultimately was of the opinion that the information sought in respect of the names of the fathers and residential addresses of the candidates was completely invasive, and would be a roving and fishing enquiry.

The Court made it clear that the information sought was clearly protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which provided that any such information which constitutes personal information is invasive of the privacy of individuals.

Hence the Court found no merit in the petition and proceeded to dismiss it and had imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner for concealing material facts.