New Delhi: Marks obtained, grades and answer sheets are "personal information" protected under the exemption clause of the Right to Information Act , Delhi high court held Monday as it set aside CIC orders to disclose details of PM Modi's bachelors degree from DU, reports Abhinav Garg.
HC drew a distinction between "something which is of interest to the public" and "something which is in the public interest" and pointed out that "public interest override would not be attracted" where the information sought has no bearing on the discharge of responsibilities by the concerned public official/functionary (whose personal information is sought).
RTI wasn't enacted to 'provide fodder for sensationalism': HC
In a 175-page verdict, HC allowed appeals filed by DU in PM Modi's case & CBSE, which had challenged the direction to furnish copies of Class 10 and 12 records of ex-Union minister Smriti Irani.
"Thus, it is unambiguously clear that the 'marks obtained', grades, and answer sheets, etc, are in the nature of personal information and are protected under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, subject to an assessment of overriding public interest... information pertaining to an individual's educational qualifications falls within ambit of 'personal information' under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act," Justice Sachin Dutta noted.
"Public interest considerations would prevail if the information sought has a bearing on the performance of official responsibilities/functions entrusted to a public functionary, or where the information sought concerns exposure of wrongdoing in the discharge of official functions, financial impropriety, inefficiency and/or has a bearing on the very eligibility (as prescribed under law) for holding a particular office," it clarified.
Dealing with a batch of petitions stemming from CIC rulings, Justice Datta observed that the "entire approach of CIC was thoroughly misconceived". Following an RTI application by one Neeraj, CIC had in 2016 asked DU to allow inspection of records of all students who cleared BA exam in 1978 - the year the PM passed out. HC, however, had stayed the CIC order on Jan 23, 2017.
In its verdict on Monday, HC stressed that RTI Act was enacted to promote transparency in govt functioning and not to "provide fodder for sensationalism" and further observed that "what may superficially appear to be an innocuous or isolated disclosure" could open "floodgates of indiscriminate demands, motivated by idle curiosity or sensationalism" instead of an objective "public interest" consideration.
Citing the landmark K S Puttaswamy verdict on right to privacy by Supreme Court, HC emphasised 'disclosure of academic details sans any overriding public interest, would amount to an intrusion into the personal sphere which is constitutionally protected post. The fact that the information sought pertains to a public figure does not extinguish privacy/confidentiality rights over personal data, unconnected with public duties'.
DU challenged the CIC order on grounds that it held the information of students in a fiduciary capacity and "mere curiosity" in the absence of public interest did not entitle anyone to seek private information under the RTI law. The applicants had previously defended the CIC's order on grounds that RTI Act provided for disclosure of the PM's educational information in greater public good.
In Irani's case, it cited the same exemption clause and said that her educational qualifications were not in the nature of any statutory requirement for holding any public office or discharging official responsibilities.
HC drew a distinction between "something which is of interest to the public" and "something which is in the public interest" and pointed out that "public interest override would not be attracted" where the information sought has no bearing on the discharge of responsibilities by the concerned public official/functionary (whose personal information is sought).
RTI wasn't enacted to 'provide fodder for sensationalism': HC
In a 175-page verdict, HC allowed appeals filed by DU in PM Modi's case & CBSE, which had challenged the direction to furnish copies of Class 10 and 12 records of ex-Union minister Smriti Irani.
"Thus, it is unambiguously clear that the 'marks obtained', grades, and answer sheets, etc, are in the nature of personal information and are protected under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, subject to an assessment of overriding public interest... information pertaining to an individual's educational qualifications falls within ambit of 'personal information' under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act," Justice Sachin Dutta noted.
"Public interest considerations would prevail if the information sought has a bearing on the performance of official responsibilities/functions entrusted to a public functionary, or where the information sought concerns exposure of wrongdoing in the discharge of official functions, financial impropriety, inefficiency and/or has a bearing on the very eligibility (as prescribed under law) for holding a particular office," it clarified.
Dealing with a batch of petitions stemming from CIC rulings, Justice Datta observed that the "entire approach of CIC was thoroughly misconceived". Following an RTI application by one Neeraj, CIC had in 2016 asked DU to allow inspection of records of all students who cleared BA exam in 1978 - the year the PM passed out. HC, however, had stayed the CIC order on Jan 23, 2017.
In its verdict on Monday, HC stressed that RTI Act was enacted to promote transparency in govt functioning and not to "provide fodder for sensationalism" and further observed that "what may superficially appear to be an innocuous or isolated disclosure" could open "floodgates of indiscriminate demands, motivated by idle curiosity or sensationalism" instead of an objective "public interest" consideration.
Citing the landmark K S Puttaswamy verdict on right to privacy by Supreme Court, HC emphasised 'disclosure of academic details sans any overriding public interest, would amount to an intrusion into the personal sphere which is constitutionally protected post. The fact that the information sought pertains to a public figure does not extinguish privacy/confidentiality rights over personal data, unconnected with public duties'.
DU challenged the CIC order on grounds that it held the information of students in a fiduciary capacity and "mere curiosity" in the absence of public interest did not entitle anyone to seek private information under the RTI law. The applicants had previously defended the CIC's order on grounds that RTI Act provided for disclosure of the PM's educational information in greater public good.
In Irani's case, it cited the same exemption clause and said that her educational qualifications were not in the nature of any statutory requirement for holding any public office or discharging official responsibilities.
You may also like
Sharjah launches India Startup hub following MoU between Sheraa and Startup Middle East to boost UAE–India ties
Liverpool player ratings vs Newcastle as Rio Ngumoha scores dramatic winner
HC quashes CIC order to disclose PM's DU degree
Celebrity SAS winners revealed after gruelling show's controversial exits
Europe's summer wildfires break terrifying record as 1 MILLION hectares scorched
