New Delhi, Dec 22: No doubts, Govt can have a check on blackmailers, who without any concern & public interest but just to mint money, file RTI applications to get informations, which have no concern in publics interest at all?
One can observe that some notorious blackmailers just to harass building owners & to mint money only file RTI's in JMC/JDA/Housing Board by calling informations of only building permissions of the concernds if scores are not settled & thereafter now following it in Govt grievance Cell, just to put nurden on Govt's work, otherwise such ones are needed to be crushed byn the Govt?
However, one, Nasir Iqbal Parrey, a retired Additional Deputy Commissioner & senior KAS Officer, who has been recently framed for corrption by the Court had also established a new gang of extortionists by contacting first the building owners for money, if not get money, then starting filling RTI/complaints etc etc.
However, due to his eagerness to get money was trapped for proof of extortion in wsap chat & complaint has been filed in police station with snapshots of his extortion of Rs 20 lacs but after just danda of police on phone, started weeping & is silent & such actions are required on other notorious one to save the innocents.
However, so, many court orders has been passed to have a check on such kind of blackmailers, one order copy with CTN reads as under:-
New Delhi, Dec 22: The High Court of Delhi had held - “that information which involves the rights of privacy of a third party in terms of Section 8(1)(j) RTI Act cannot be ordered to be disclosed without notice to such third party.
The authority cannot simply come to conclusion, that too, on a concession or on the agreement of parties before it, that public interest overrides the privacy rights of such third party without notice to and hearing such third party”.
Section 11(1) of the Online RTI Act provides as follows: “11.
Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.”
How to interpret Third Party Clause When the PIO puts in motion the third party reference, he is of a view that the information is not exempt, and is giving the chance to the third party to voice any objections which could be based on the exemptions under the Act. Only if the third party’s objection is in line with one of the exemptions under Section 8 (1) or Section 9, the PIO will again examine the issue.
If he is convinced that an exemption applies, he must change his earlier position to disclose.
It must be stressed that the issue of a larger public interest needs to be invoked only if the exemption is established. Otherwise, no public interest in disclosure needs to be established. It is also evident that if there is no response from the third party, the information has to be disclosed since the PIO has come to the conclusion that the information is not exempt.
It is right vested in the third party to treat any information ‘relating to or supplied by the third party’ as confidential.”
In this regard, it may be worthwhile to note the observations of Muralidhar, J. of the High Court of Delhi in Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO W. P. (C) 6614/2008 and C. M. Appl. No. 12685/2008, W. P. (C) 8999/2008 and C. M. Appl. No. 7517/2008, W. P. (C) 8407/2009 and C. M. Appl. 5286/2009 decided on 30/07/2010, in Paragraph 21, which are as follows: “…It requires to be noticed that under the RTI Act information that is totally exempt from disclosure has been listed out in Section 8. The concept of privacy is incorporated in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
This provision would be a defense available to a person about whom information is being sought. Such defense could be taken by a third party in a proceeding under Section 11(1) when upon being issued notice such third party might want to resist disclosure on the grounds of privacy.
This is a valuable right of a third party that encapsulates the principle of natural justice inasmuch as the statute mandates that there cannot be a disclosure of information pertaining to or which ‘relates’ to such third party without affording such third party an opportunity of being heard on whether such disclosure should be ordered.
This is a procedural safeguard that has been inserted in the RTI Act to balance the rights of privacy and the public interest involved in disclosure of such information.
Once Section 11(1) of the RTI Act is applicable, the PIO shall follow the procedure of serving a notice to the third party for seeking objections whether such information shall be disclosed or not. On receipt of the submissions of the third party, the PIO shall keep the submissions in view and then decide whether the information sought shall be disclosed or not.
However (except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law) even where the PIO is of the view that there is possible harm or injury to the interests of the third party, but public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any such harm or injury, he may disclose the information.
The Public Information Officer will have to consider the following: The objections raised by the third party by claiming confidentiality in respect of the information sought for.
Whether the information is being sought by the applicant in larger public interest or to wreak vendetta against the third party.
In deciding that the profile of person seeking information and his credentials will have to be looked into.
If the profile of the person seeking information, in light of other attending circumstances, leads to the construction that under the pretext of serving public interest, such person is aiming to settle personal score against the third party, it cannot be said that public interest warrants disclosure of the information solicited.
The Public Information Officer, while dealing with the information relating to or supplied by the third party, has to constantly bear in mind that the Act does not become a tool in hands of a busy body to settle a personal score.
|