Personal Info of bank employees exempt from disclosure under RTI : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that that service details of bank employees like information regarding transfer , posting of the clerical staff can’t be shared with an RTI applicant as ‘personal information’ is exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, unless there was larger public interest involved.

 

Terming the RTI application as “wholly misconceived”, a Bench of Justice RK Agrawal and Justice AM Sapre set aside an order of the Kerala High Court and allowed the appeal filed by Canara Bank.

Citing its earlier verdicts on the issue, the top court said personal information was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act and can’t be shared with RTI applicants, unless there was larger public interest involved. 

By an order dated September 20, 2007, the High Court had directed the Deputy General Manager of Canara Bank to part with information regarding transfer and posting of the entire clerical staff from January 1, 2002, to July 31, 2006, in all the branches in Mallapuram district sought by CS Shyam, a clerk with the bank. 

This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc.

The High Court had upheld the order of the Central Information Commission which had reversed the decisions of the Chief Public Information Officer and Public Information Officer not to part with the information asked for by Shyam.

Allowing the bank’s appeal against the High Court’s order, the top court restored the decisions of Chief Public Information Officer and Public Information Officer. It rejected Shyam’s contentions on the grounds that the information sought by him regarding individual employees working in the bank was personal in nature and it was exempt from being disclosed under Section 8(1)(J) of the RTI Act. 

The Bench said the RTI applicant failed to disclose any public interest “much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee” and there was no such finding recorded by the CIC or the High Court either. 

“We are of the considered view that the application made by respondent No.1 (Shyam) under Section 6 of the Act was wholly misconceived and was, therefore, rightly rejected by the Public Information Officer and Chief Public Information Officer whereas wrongly allowed by the Central Information Commission and the High Court,” the Bench said.

 Post Views: 1,970

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share15

Tags: Banking News

Citing its earlier verdicts on the issue, the top court said personal information was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act and can’t be shared with RTI applicants, unless there was larger public interest involved. 

By an order dated September 20, 2007, the High Court had directed the Deputy General Manager of Canara Bank to part with information regarding transfer and posting of the entire clerical staff from January 1, 2002, to July 31, 2006, in all the branches in Mallapuram district sought by CS Shyam, a clerk with the bank. 

This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc.

The High Court had upheld the order of the Central Information Commission which had reversed the decisions of the Chief Public Information Officer and Public Information Officer not to part with the information asked for by Shyam.

Allowing the bank’s appeal against the High Court’s order, the top court restored the decisions of Chief Public Information Officer and Public Information Officer. It rejected Shyam’s contentions on the grounds that the information sought by him regarding individual employees working in the bank was personal in nature and it was exempt from being disclosed under Section 8(1)(J) of the RTI Act. 

The Bench said the RTI applicant failed to disclose any public interest “much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee” and there was no such finding recorded by the CIC or the High Court either. 

“We are of the considered view that the application made by respondent No.1 (Shyam) under Section 6 of the Act was wholly misconceived and was, therefore, rightly rejected by the Public Information Officer and Chief Public Information Officer whereas wrongly allowed by the Central Information Commission and the High Court,” the Bench said.