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 :::