P C Wadhwa Vs Central Information Commission & Others: Personal Information Of Public Figures Cannot Be Disclosed To Public Disclosed Under The Guise Of Public Interest

DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
November 29th, 2010

JUDGES:
Chief Justice Mr. Mukul Mudgal, Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi

SUBJECT

The following judgment deals with the question that whether or not Central Information Commission is obligated to disclose personal information of public figures under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

AN OVERVIEW

• This case deals with an appeal against the judgment of a single judge bench who had dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner seeking relief against the order of the Central Information Commission who had declined to supply information in respect of certain public figures, demanded by the petitioner.
• The petitioner wanted the Central Information Commission to disclose information of certain public figures regarding their religion. He claimed that under the Right to Information Act, 2005 he was entitled to such information.
• The court held that such information was protected under Section 15 of the Census Act, 1948 which was also consistent with provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It was also held that any such information given to the consensus officers is held as confidential and does not amount to be disclosed under the guise of public interest and thus the appeal was dismissed.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

• Right to Information Act, 2005: Under this act, an individual can seek information about any act or functioning of any government organization and the organization has to provide the information within a span of 30 days failing which a fine will be imposed.
• Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005: This section given an exception to the Right to Information. As per its provisions there is no obligation to give any citizen any information which relates to personal information.
• Section 15 of the Census Act, 1948: Under this act the Census Act prohibits any data collected by Census officials from being made public.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

This is an appeal filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner for quashing the order whereby the Central Information Commission had declined the prayer to supply information in respect of certain public figures, demanded by the petitioner.

• The petitioner had applied to the Right to Information Act, 2005 against respondent i.e. Registrar General, Census Operations, New Delhi, seeking information regarding certain individuals, which according to him are the leaders of the nation, and the information regarding their religion was sought in the public interest. The said request for supplying the information was declined by the respondent on the ground that no person had a right to inspect any book, register, or record made by a Census Officer in the discharge of his duty as such or any item under Section 10 of the Act. The petitioner challenged that order before the higher officer, who rejected the prayer by holding that for preparing census, facts are collected from individuals in a household, which is confidential in nature and is used only for statistical purposes. Therefore, the petitioner's request for supplying information was dismissed. This order was challenged before the Central Information Commission by filing an appeal which was also dismissed, the order was sought to be reviewed by the petitioner, and the review application was also dismissed by the Central Information Commission.
• A reading of the order would go on to show that the request of the petitioner was declined by the authority given the provisions of Section 15 of the Census Act, 1948 according to which No person shall have a right to inspect any book, register, or record made by a census-officer in the discharge of his duty, or any schedule delivered under section 10, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no entry in any such book, register, record or schedule shall be admissible as evidence in any civil proceeding criminal proceeding other than a prosecution under this Act or any other law for any act or omission which constitutes an offense under this Act.
• Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, and the said Appellate Authority while relying upon Section 8 (1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, dismissed the appeal. Relying upon the above information, the Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner also observed that it was quite clear that the information given by the citizens for Census Operation is treated as personal and confidential, and all records, registers, etc. maintained in respect of that information is not allowed to go into the public domain on account of the strict confidentiality with which this information is treated.
• The information requested by the appellant is in respect of personal data furnished by third parties to the Census Officers in terms of the provisions of the Census Act. This information was provided with a strict understanding that it shall not be disclosed and shall always be held as confidential. In that sense, its disclosure is barred by Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
• The RTI Act also very clearly bars any disclosure of such information under Section 8(1)(i). This Section prohibits disclosure of personal information which have had no relationship with a public activity or interest or which would amount to an invasion of privacy of an individual. The information which the appellant has now requested attracts all the ingredients of this exemption.
• The court noted that A question may arise as to whether the explicit provisions of the Census Act of 1948 stand abrogated by the overriding effect given to the RTI Act of 2005. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 22 of the RTI Act which states that. The provisions of this Act shall affect anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or any instrument affecting under any law other than this Act.
• The court further observed that the RTI Act, being recent legislation, will over-ride the inconsistent provisions contained in other enactments, including the Census Act of 1948 but this overriding effect is only to the extent of the inconsistency. It is not that section 22 of the RTI act has the effect of either abrogating or repealing all other enactments dealing with the furnishing of information to an information seeker. In the instant case, the denial of information has been under the provisions of Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act and not under the Census Act. If the provisions of Census Act, 1948 are read together with the provisions of Section 8(1)(e)and Section 8(1) (i) of the RTI Act, it has to be held that the Appellant authority had correctly concluded that the information as requested by the appellant could not be disclosed.
• Aggrieved by this the petitioner filed a writ petition out of which this appeal has. The learned Single Judge considering the above findings held that for preparing the census, facts are collected by the authorities in confidence, and thus they cannot be disclosed to any other individual. The learned Single Judge further held that orders passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Directorate of Census Operations, Delhi were not challenged by the appellant and thus have become final. Both these orders declined to give information sought by the appellant based on Section 15 of the Census Act, 1948, already extracted above.
• Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, on which reliance is placed by the appellant states that The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or any instrument affecting under any law other than this Act.
• The main substance of the appellant's plea is that the person against whom the information is sought are an important public figure and he as a citizen is entitled to know the religion practiced by them. The Court was unable to agree with the appellant. The appellant wants to know the religion disclosed by important public figures to the Census Authorities and any such information is covered under the Section 15 of the Census. The appellant's plea is that Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 overrides the provisions of Section 15 of the Census Act and hence disclosure of the information sought by the appellant cannot be withheld.
• The court was of the view that, the provisions of Section 15 of the Census Act, 1948 are not inconsistent with provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and that both can be read harmoniously. According to the court the Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 will not come into operation and cannot sustain the pleas of the appellant. It further stated that it is apparent that the appellant wants to obtain information about the religion practice of such public persons and India being a socialist, democratic and secular democratic republic, any attempt to obtain such information about the religion practices of an individual cannot under any circumstance, be considered to be in public interest. Furthermore, such information is strictly confidential as per Section 15 of the Census Act, 1948. Merely stating that such information is sought against public figures and the leaders of nation cannot change the statutory impact of the above provisions. It is thus evident that the petitioner is making efforts to make unjustified attempts to encroach the privacy of said individuals even if they are public figures. Consequently, the information given to the Census Officer cannot be made public in view of the Section 15 of the Census Act, which is not inconsistent with Section 22 and section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Accordingly, The court was of the opinion that there was no merit in this appeal which stands dismissed.

CONCLUSION

In this case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had to decide that whether or not the appeal against the order of the Central Information Commission who had declined to supply information in respect of certain public figures was correct. The court held that the petition under the Right to Information Act, 2005 held no substantial value as the information requested by the petitioner was ‘personal’ and was not in the general public interest. The court also held that information given to the Central Information Commission’s officers is given confidentially and cannot be disclosed under any circumstances. Also, In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India Article 21 was interpreted in a broad sense by the Supreme Court. It was held that both the rights of personal security and personal liberty recognized by ‘natural law’ are embodied in Article 21. A wide interpretation was attributed to the Right to Life, also encompassing the right to privacy in its realm. Thus revealing such information would be an invasion of privacy of the person and would be unconstitutional.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement