EXEMTPION TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005

The section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 lists all of the exemptions, they are:

 Information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the security, sovereignty and
integrity of India
 Information which might constitute contempt of court
 Information that would cause a breach of privilege of parliament or the state legislature
 Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the
disclosure of which harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent
authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such
information
 Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent
authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such
information
 Information received in confidence from foreign government
 Information which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person
 Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or
prosecution of offenders
 Cabinet papers including record of deliberations, which come under the specified
exemptions
 Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relation
to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy

LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS:

CASE: RK JAIN VS UNION OF INDIA

CASE BRIEF:

In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed a judgment by the Delhi High Court holding that
Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) of a public officer constituted ‘personal information’ and
‘third party information’ and were therefore exempt from mandatory disclosure under the Right
to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). If disclosure was sought, the procedure prescribed under
Section 11 of the RTI Act would mandatorily have to be followed and the Chief Information
Commissioner would need to consider the question of a compelling public interest in such
disclosure. In this case, the Appellant, R.K. Jain, had sought information on a tribunal member
relating to adverse entries in her ACR and the ‘follow up action’ taken regarding these entries.
Release of this information was denied by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) on the
basis of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which denial was confirmed in subsequent appeals. The
matter finally came before the Supreme Court.
The Court reasoned that information relating to charges, penalties or sanctions imposed on an
employee and records containing information of such nature was necessarily a matter between
employee and employer, the disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or
public interest. The Court further noted that to disclose information of such a nature could cause
an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The Court also reiterated that it was the prerogative of the
competent authority to decide if such information could be disclosed in the greater public
interest.

FACTS:

In 2009, the Appellant, R.K. Jain, applied to the Information Officer for copies of all note sheets
and correspondence pages of a file relating to Jyoti Balasundram, a judicial member of the
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), pursuant to the RTI Act.
Release of the information sought was denied by the CPIO on the grounds that the requested
file contained an analysis of Jyoti Balasundram’s ACR which was personal information, the
disclosure of which was exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Subsequent appeals to
the Director and Appellate Authority and the Central Information Commission (CIC) were also
rejected. A single Judge Bench and Division Bench of the Delhi High Court also rejected the
Appellant’s requests on the basis that the information held was third party information, and the
proper question for investigation was whether release of the information was necessary in public
interest. Finally this case was brought before the Supreme Court by the Appellant.

ISSUES:

a) Whether the information sought by the Appellant was personal

HELD:

The Court first discussed the question of what constituted personal information by referring to
Section 8 of the RTI Act. Section 8 dealt with exemption from disclosure of information. Under
Clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, there was no obligation to give any citizen information
which related to personal information and the disclosure of which had no relationship to any
public activity or interest, or which would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the
individual. However, information could be disclosed even if it fell under the ambit of this
subsection if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the
Appellate Authority was satisfied that the larger public interest justified the disclosure of such
information.
The second question that the Court dealt with was whether the information sought by the
Appellant was third party information. Section 11 of the RTI Act dealt with third party information
and the circumstances when such information could be disclosed as well as the manner in
which it was to be disclosed, if so decided by the competent authority. According to Section
11(1), if the information related to or had been supplied by a third party, and if such information
requested under the RTI Act was intended to be disclosed by the Central Public Information
Officer or State Information Public Officer, it could be disclosed only if the third party agreed to
such disclosure upon serving of a written notice or if the public interest in the disclosure
outweighed the possible harm that shall accrue to the third party. The Court discussed the case
of Arvind Kejriwal vs. Central Public Information Officer (AIR 2010 Delhi 216) which discussed
the mandatory requirement of following the procedure under Section 11, given the fact that once
third party information had been disclosed, it would come into the public domain and the privacy
rights of the third party could therefore be affected.

The Court further discussed and relied on the case Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central
Information Commissioner and Ors. ((2013) 1 SCC 212) in which the Central Information
Commissioner denied the release of information pertaining to the service career of a third party
as well as details relating to the assets, liabilities, moveable and immovable properties of the
third party, on the ground that the information sought for was qualified to be personal
information as defined in Clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. It also held that the
performance of an employee / officer in an organisation was primarily a matter between the
employee and the employer, and normally those aspects were governed by the service rules
which fell under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which had no
relationship with any public activity or public interest. 

The Court finally remitted the case back to the Central Information Commission to consider after
completing the procedure prescribed under Section 11 of the RTI Act. The decision affirmed that
the determination as to when the disclosure of such information would qualify as compelling in
the larger public interest, remains within the remit of the Information Commissioners, as
intended by the Legislature. 

CASE: UNION OF INDIA (UOI) V. RESPONDENT: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC

FACTS:

The Association for Democratic Reforms filed a petition with the High Court of Delhi to compel
implementation of certain recommendations regarding how to make the electoral process in
India more fair, transparent and equitable (pg. 1). As requested by the Government of India,
these recommendations had been produced by the Law Commission and provided that the
Election Commission should require all candidates to disclose personal background information
to the public, including criminal history, educational qualifications, personal financial details and
other information necessary for judging a candidate’s capacity and capability (pg. 1-3). Ruling
that a candidate’s background should not be kept in the dark as it is not in the interest of
democracy, the High Court of Delhi ordered the Election Commission to obtain such information
for the benefit of the voters (pg. 3). The Union of India challenged the decision through an
appeal to the Supreme Court of India, arguing that the Election Commission and the High Court
did not have such powers and that voters did not have a right to such information.

HELD:

After the Union of India filed an appeal in the Supreme Court, it ordered the Election
Commission to formulate necessary orders to require all candidates to furnish information on
the following aspects of their background: 

1. Criminal charges and convictions

2. Pending cases where the candidate is an accused

3. All assets including those of her spouse

4. All liabilities 

5. Educational qualifications

Citing Section 8(1)(j), the Court also stated that any information which will not be denied to the
Parliament or the State Legislature should not be denied to any person.