Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Petition challenging CIC’s refusal to disclose attendance records under RTI Act dismissed; Bombay High Court deemed proper jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Subramonium Prasad on May 24, 2024, dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) decision to deny the disclosure of attendance records of consultants and officers in the Santacruz Electronic Export Processing Zone-Special Economic Zone (SEEPZ-SEZ). The court emphasized the principles of forum conveniens and upheld the exemption of personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

The petitioner, Binod Agarwal, had sought attendance records of consultants and officers above a certain pay grade at SEEPZ-SEZ, Mumbai, under the RTI Act. The CPIO had partially denied the request, citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts personal information from disclosure unless justified by a larger public interest. The CIC upheld this decision, leading Agarwal to file a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, arguing for the information’s disclosure and challenging the CIC’s order.

Territorial Jurisdiction: Justice Prasad underscored the importance of territorial jurisdiction, noting that all relevant authorities and the SEEPZ-SEZ itself are located in Mumbai. Referring to the principle of forum conveniens, the court stated, “The Petitioner ought to have approached the High Court of Bombay for redressal of his grievances since that was the forum conveniens as the office of SEEPZ-SEZ is situated in Mumbai.” This established that the Delhi High Court was not the appropriate forum for the case.

Right to Information and Exemption of Personal Information: The court detailed the legislative framework of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts personal information from disclosure unless justified by larger public interest. The judgment cited precedents from the Supreme Court, including the cases of Subhash Chandra Agarwal and Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, to define the scope of personal information. “Personal records, including professional records and performance evaluations, are protected from unwarranted invasion of privacy unless public interest demands disclosure,” the court noted.

The judgment articulated that the information sought by the petitioner—attendance records of consultants—constituted personal information. The court affirmed the Central Public Information Officer’s (CPIO) procedure of seeking consent from the consultants under Section 11 of the RTI Act, noting that some consultants objected to the disclosure. Justice Prasad remarked, “The Petitioner has been unable to demonstrate the overarching public purpose which will be served by supplying the information which is being sought.”

Justice Prasad stated, “In the absence of any public interest, the CPIO of a public authority has no obligation to divulge such information.” Furthermore, the court took judicial notice of the petitioner’s status as a disgruntled employee, suggesting that the RTI application might be motivated by personal vendetta rather than genuine public interest.

The Delhi High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting personal information from unwarranted invasion of privacy under the RTI Act. By affirming the CIC’s decision and emphasizing territorial jurisdiction, the judgment reinforces the principles of forum conveniens and privacy in RTI cases. This decision is anticipated to influence future RTI applications involving personal information and jurisdictional considerations.

Date of Decision: May 24, 2024

Binod Agarwal v. The CPIO and Ors.

Similar News