Ajit Pawar Judgement
Ajit Pawar Judgement
Ajit Pawar Judgement
Adult,Agedabout66years
Hindu,IndianInhabitant,residingat
B2,GokulApartment,PodarRoad,
Santacruz,(West)Mumbai400054
)
)
)
)
)
Versus
..Petitioners
)
)
)
)
ig
h
1TheCentralInformationCommission
R.No.326,CWing,IIFloor,
AugustKrantiBhavan
BhikajiCamaPlace,NewDelhi110066
C
ou
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY
CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION
WRITPETITIONNO.8753OF2013
rt
wp875313(reserve)
2TheCentralPublicInformationOfficer )
Asst.CommissionerofIncomeTax18(2) )
PiramalChambers,1stfloor,Room,No.15)
Lalbaug,Mumbai400012
)
)
)
)
)
)
..Respondents
om
ba
y
3ShriAjitAPawar
TheDeputychiefMinisterof
StateofMaharashtra
Deogiri,NarayanDabholkarRoad,
MalabarHill,Mumbai400006
ShriJabbarShaikhi/bMr.SandeepJalanforthePetitioner
ShriRaviKadamSeniorAdvocate,i/bMr.V.P.SawantfortheRespondent
No.3
Mr.A.R.MalhtorawithMr.N.A.KazifortheRespondentNo.2
CORAM: R.M.SAVANT,J.
RESERVEDON: 6thMAY,2015
PRONOUNCEDON:11thJUNE2015
JUDGMENT
1
Rule,withtheconsentoftheLearnedCounselforthepartiesmade
returnableforthwithandheard.
mmj
1of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:48 :::
wp875313(reserve)
rt
dated1552013passedbytheRespondentNo.1i.e.theCentralInformation
C
ou
Commissionbywhichorder,theSecondAppealfiledbythePetitionerunder
theRighttoInformationAct2005,(hereinafterreferredtoasthesaidAct)
cametobedismissedandresultantly,theorderspassedbytheCentralPublic
InformationOfficer(CPIOforshort)oftheIncomeTaxDepartmentandthe
ig
h
ThePetitionerabovenamedclaimstobeanRTIactivistandisa
formerCentralInformationCommissioner(CIC).Presently,thePetitioneristhe
ba
y
om
ThePetitioneronorabout21112012madeanapplicationunder
Section6ofthesaidAct,totheCPIOoftheIncomeTaxDepartmentinteralia
requestingcertaininformationandmoreparticularlytheIncomeTaxReturns
and balance 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 :::
wp875313(reserve)
whoisathirdparty,itseemsthatintermsofSection11ofthesaidAct,aletter
rt
wasaddressedbytheCPIOtotheRespondentNo.3.Areplywasreceivedfrom
C
ou
theRespondentNo.3opposingthedisclosureofanyinformation.TheCPIOof
theIncomeTaxDepartmentthereafterbyherorderdated212013deniedthe
saidinformationsoughtbythePetitioner.Itwasobservedinthesaidorderthat
theinformationsoughtforhasnorelationshiptoanypublicactivityorinterest
ig
h
andthereforedoesnotqualifyinviewoftheprovisionsofSection8(1)(j)of
thesaidAct.ThePetitionerwashoweverinformedthatifheisaggrievedby
the said order, he may file an Appeal before the First Appellate Authority
whosedesignationwasmentionedinthesaidorder.
ThePetitioneraccordinglyfiledaFirstAppealunderSection19of
ba
y
thesaidAct.ThesaidAppealinteraliacontainedthegroundsonwhichthe
orderwaschallenged,oneofthegroundsintheAppealwasthatthedisclosure
om
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 :::
wp875313(reserve)
higherbytheApexCourtintheJudgmentinUnionofIndiaVs.Association
rt
for Democratic Reforms & Anr.(ADR)1. The said order was therefore
C
ou
challengedonthegroundthatexemptionunderSection8(1)(j)doesnotapply.
TheFirstAppealwasconsideredbytheAppellateAuthorityi.e.the
ig
h
2013 rejected the said Appeal. The First Appellate Authority reiterated the
groundsonwhichtheinformationwasdeniedbytheCPIO.TheFirstAppellate
AuthorityreferredtotheJudgmentoftheApexCourtinthecaseof Girish
ba
y
om
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 invasion of the privacy of the concerned party. Hence on the
1 (2002)5SupremeCourtCases294
2 (2013)1SupremeCourtCases212
mmj
4of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
wp875313(reserve)
rt
aforesaidgrounds,theAppealfiledbythePetitionercametoberejected.
ThePetitionerthereafterfiledaSecondAppealbeforetheCentral
C
ou
ig
h
judgmentsasalsowithoutconsideringtheprovisotothesaidSection8(1)(j)of
the said Act. The said Second Appeal filed by the Petitioner came to be
ba
y
disposedofbytheCentralInformationCommissionerbyupholdingtheorders
passedbythePublicInformationOfficerandtheFirstAppellateAuthority.The
CentralInformationCommissionerinhisorderreferredtothe5MemberBench
om
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 :::
wp875313(reserve)
InformationOfficerortheAppellateAuthorityissatisfiedthatthelargerpublic
rt
interestjustifiesthedisclosureofsuchinformation.TheCentralInformation
C
ou
CommissionerhasobservedthatinthepresentAppealthePetitionerhasnot
beenabletoproveanylargerpublicinterestwithcorroborativeevidenceand
thereforeupheldthedecisionsoftheCentralPublicInformationOfficerand
the First Appellate Authority and disposed of the said Second Appeal. As
ig
h
indicatedabove,itisthesaidorderdated1532015,passedbytheCentral
InformationCommissionerwhichistakenexceptiontobywayoftheabove
Petition.
ba
y
Submissionson752015.
om
BEHALFOFTHEPETITIONER
(i)
ThattheCentralPublicInformationOfficer,theFirstAppellateAuthority
mmj
Thatallthethreeauthoritiesbelowhavefailedtoappreciatethatthe
6of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
wp875313(reserve)
filingoftheIncomeTaxReturnsisapublicactivityandisamatterofpublic
(iii)
C
ou
IncomeTaxReturnsareprovidedtotheApplicant.
rt
interest and hence privacy of the Respondent No.3 is not breached if the
That Section 8(1)(j) itself postulates that the larger public interest
justifiesthedisclosureoftheinformationsoughtbytheApplicantthenthesaid
ig
h
informationhastobeprovided.Theauthoritiesbelowhavefailedtoappreciate
the reason why the Applicant was seeking the said information which was
(iv)
soughtbyhimbytheapplicationinquestion.
Thattheauthoritiesbelowhaveerredinapplyingthejudgmentofthe5
ba
y
MemberBenchoftheInformationCommissionasalsotheJudgmentofthe
ApexCourtin GirishRamchandraDeshpande'scase (supra)asthefactsin
om
thesaidcasesaredistinguishablefromthefactsofthepresentcase.
(v)
doesnotlaydownanypropositionoflawandthereforecannotbeapplied.
(vi)
ThatthedisclosureoftheinformationsoughtforbytheApplicantwould
beinlargerpublicinterestwhichoutweighsthebreachofprivacyifanyofthe
RespondentNo.3.
mmj
7of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
wp875313(reserve)
(vii) That the authorities below failed to consider the application on the
rt
touchstoneoftheprovisotoSection8(1)(j)ofthesaidActnamelythatthe
C
ou
informationwhichcannotbedeniedtotheParliamentortheStateLegislature
cannotbedeniedtoacitizen.
(viii) ThataDivisionBenchofthisCourtinthecaseofSurupSinghNaikVs.
ig
h
StateofMaharashtra4 hasdealtwiththeprovisotoSection8(1)(j)andhas
held in the said case that the information which cannot be denied to the
(ix)
ParliamentortheStateLegislaturecannotbedeniedtothecitizen.
ba
y
om
faithintheelectedrepresentatives.
(x)
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 :::
wp875313(reserve)
(2)(1992)1SupremeCourtCases489inthematterofStateofPunjab&Ors.
rt
Vs.SurinderKumar&Ors.
C
ou
(3)(2002)8SupremeCourtCases361inthematterofS.ShanmugavelNadar
Vs.StateofT.N.&Anr.
(xi)
ThatithasbeenheldinthematterofPUCLVs.UnionofIndia5asalso
ig
h
inthematterofR.RajgopalaliasR.R.Gopal&Anr.Vs.StateofT.N.&Anr. 6
andinthecaseofADRVs.PUCL7thatthepublicinterestelementinvolvedin
therighttoprivacy.
divulginginformationrelatingtopublicservants,MP'sandMinistersoutweighs
ba
y
SUBMISSIONOFTHELEARNEDCOUNSELMR.MALHOTRAON BEHALF
OFTHERESPONDENTNO.2
(i)
ThattheorderspassedbytheCPIO,theFirstAppellateAuthorityandthe
om
Anr.8andtheJudgmentofthe5MemberbenchoftheCommissionerwhereby
ithasbeenheldthattheIncomeTaxReturnsfallintheexemptedcategory
underSection8(1)(j)ofthesaidAct.
5
6
7
8
AIR2003SC2363
(1994)6SupremeCourtCases632
(2002)5SCC294
(2013)14SupremeCourtCases794
mmj
9of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
wp875313(reserve)
(ii)
ThatthePetitionerhasnotbeenabletoconnecttheinformationsought
rt
i.e.theIncomeTaxReturnsoftheRespondentNo.3withanypublicactivityof
providetheinformationtothePetitioner.
C
ou
theRespondentNo.3andthereforetheauthoritieswererightinrefusingto
SUBMISSIONOFTHELEARNEDSENIORCOUNSELMR.R.M.KADAMON
ig
h
BEHALFOFTHERESPONDENTNO.3
(i)
That from the reason mentioned in the application for seeking the
ba
y
Petitionerhasfailedtodischargetheburdenwhichwouldentitlehimtothe
saidinformation.RelianceisplacedonthejudgmentoftheApexCourtinthe
matterofBiharPublicServiceCommissionVs.SaiyedHussanAbbasRizvi
om
&Anr.9
(ii)
That the information sought namely the Income Tax Returns of the
RespondentNo.3hasnorelationwithanypublicactivityoftheRespondent
No.3
(iii)
ThatinviewoftheJudgmentoftheApexCourtinGirishRamchandra
Deshpande's case (supra) which has been reiterated by the Apex Court in
9 (2012)13SCC61
mmj
10of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
wp875313(reserve)
rt
fallswithintheexemptedcategoryunderSection8(1)(j)andsincenocaseof
C
ou
public interest has been made out by the Petitioner, the said information
cannotbeprovided.Theauthoritiesbelowwerethereforerightinrejectingthe
applicationofthePetitioner.
ig
h
(iv)
Petitionerhavenorelevanceinthecontextoftheinformationsoughtbythe
PetitionerundertheRighttoInformationAct.TheRighttoInformationActisa
selfcontainedcodeandunlesspublicinterestismadeoutorthatthepublic
interestoutweighstherighttoprivacyoftheRespondentNo.3,theinformation
(v)
ba
y
soughtbythePetitionercannotbeprovided.
ThattherelianceplacedbythePetitionerontheprovisotoSection8(1)
om
(j)ismisplacedasthemattercannotbeapproachedfromtheperspectiveand
hypothesisthattheinformationsoughtcannotbedeniedtotheParliamentor
the State Legislature and therefore cannot be denied to the Petitioner. 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 :::
wp875313(reserve)
rt
(vi)
C
ou
withthesaidprovisoisclearlydistinguishableonfactsandthereforethesaid
Judgmenthasnoapplication.
(vii) That the reason given by the Petitioner for seeking the information
ig
h
cannot stand scrutiny in view of the fact that under the Representation of
PeopleAct,1950,ifincorrectinformationisprovidedbyacandidate,thenthe
candidatecanbeprosecutedunderSection125ofthesaidAct.TheParliament
initswisdomhavingdirectedthecandidatetoprovidetheinformationtothe
extentmentionedinthesaidActatthetimeoffilingofthenomination,itisfor
ba
y
om
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 :::
wp875313(reserve)
C
ou
informationgivenatthetimeoffilingthenomination.
CONSIDERATION
8
rt
InformationActonthegroundthattheinformationistobecomparedwiththe
consideredtherivalcontentions.Thequestionthatarisesforconsiderationin
ig
h
theinstantmatteriswhetherthePetitionerisentitledtotheinformationhe
hassoughtforvidehisapplicationfiledunderthesaidActorwhetherthesaid
informationfallswithintheexemptedcategoryunderSection8(1)(j)ofthe
saidAct.Atthisstage,itwouldnecessarytorefertotheprovisionsofthesaid
Actwhichhaveabearingintheinstantmatter.ThesaidprovisionsareSection
ba
y
Section8(1)(j)andSection11ofthesaidAct,whichforthesakeofready
referencearereproducedhereinunder:
om
mmj
13of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
wp875313(reserve)
C
ou
rt
ig
h
om
ba
y
11.Thirdpartyinformation.
(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a
StatePublicInformationOfficer,asthecasemaybe,
intends to disclose any information or record, or
part thereof on a request made under this Act,
which relates to or has been supplied by a third
partyandhasbeentreatedasconfidentialbythat
thirdparty,theCentralPublicInformationOfficeror
mmj
14of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
wp875313(reserve)
ig
h
C
ou
rt
StatePublicInformationOfficer,asthecasemaybe,
shall, within five days from the receipt of the
request,giveawrittennoticetosuchthirdpartyof
therequestandofthefactthattheCentralPublic
Information Officer or State Public Information
Officer,asthecasemaybe,intendstodisclosethe
informationorrecord,orpartthereof,andinvitethe
third party to make a submission in writing or
orally,regardingwhethertheinformationshouldbe
disclosed, and such submission of the third party
shallbekeptinviewwhiletakingadecisionabout
disclosureofinformation:
om
ba
y
mmj
15of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
wp875313(reserve)
rt
givenisentitledtopreferanappealundersection
19againstthedecision.
In so far as Section 11 is concerned, if the information sought
C
ou
relatestoathirdparty,theCPIOortheStatePublicInformationOfficerasthe
casemaybeiswithin5daysfromthereceiptoftherequestisrequiredtogive
awrittennoticetosuchthirdpartyoftherequestandofthefactthattheCPIO
ig
h
ortheStatePublicInformationOfficerasthecasemaybeintendstodisclose
theinformationortherecordorpartthereofandinvitedthethirdpartyto
makeasubmissioninwritingororallyregardingwhetherthesaidinformation
shouldbedisclosed.HenceintermsofSection11,thethirdpartyisrequiredto
begivenanoticeandthereplygivenbythethirdpartytotherequestmade
10
ba
y
hastobeconsideredbytheInformationOfficerwhilstdecidingtheapplication.
InsofarasSection8(1)(j)isconcerned,itrelatestothepersonal
om
informationofanindividualwhichhasnorelationshiptoanypublicactivityor
interest. The said clause (j) is a part of Section 8 which contains various
mmj
16of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
wp875313(reserve)
rt
C
ou
considered.ThePetitionerinhisapplicationmadeon21112012hassought
theIncomeTaxReturnsofthepreviousthreefinancialyearsoftheRespondent
No.3.ThereasonforwhichtheinformationsoughthasbeenstatedthusThere
isalargerpublicinterestindisclosingthisinformationtocomparehisaffidavit
ig
h
giventotheElectionCommissionwithhisIncomeTaxReturns.TheCPIOof
theIncomeTaxDepartmentsentanoticetotheRespondentNo.3whoinhis
replyobjectedtotheinformationbeingsuppliedtothePetitioner.Asindicated
hereinabove,thesaidapplicationofthePetitionercametoberejectedbythe
CPIO.Thereasonmentionedintheorderdated212013wastotheeffectthat
ba
y
theinformationsoughthasnorelationshiptoanypublicactivityorinterestand
itthereforedoesnotqualifyforbringdisclosedinviewofSection8(1)(j)ofthe
om
saidAct.
11
ThePetitioneraggrievedbythesaidorderdated212013filedan
AppealbeforetheFirstAppellateAuthorityunderSection19ofthesaidAct.
Afterjustifyingthereasonforseekinginformation,thePetitionerinparagraph
(4)ofthesaidAppealhasstatedtothefollowingeffect:
There is a general belief that politicians and
elected representatives are corrupt and mass
wealthattheexpenseofthepublic.Thereisalso
acommonbeliefthatIncomeTaxauthoritiesdo
notcheckthatITreturnsofthosewhoareelected
mmj
17of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
C
ou
withtheirdeclaredaffidavitsfiledatthetimeof
standingforelections.Ifthistrue,citizenswillact
asmonitorsandhelpcorrectsuchpractices.On
theotherhandifcitizensapprehensionsarenot
true,itwouldenhancethetrustandrespectfor
theelectedrepresentative,whichisnecessaryfor
a healthy democracy. Besides it would also
improve the Citizens' trust in the Income Tax
department.
rt
wp875313(reserve)
ig
h
HencethePetitionerhadsoughttosupplementthereasongivenin
hisoriginalapplicationbeforetheCPIObymakingageneralstatementinhis
Appealtotheeffectmentionedintheexcerptedportionofparagraph(4) as
aboveofhisAppeal.ThesaidAppealasindicatedabovewasdismissedbythe
FirstAppellateAuthoritybyitsorderdated522013andthereasonmentioned
ba
y
bytheCPIOwasreiteratedbytheFirstAppellateAuthority.TheFirstAppellate
AuthorityhasonlybroadenedthegroundmentionedbytheCPIObystating
thatthedisclosureofthesaidinformationwouldcauseunwarrantedinvasion
om
oftheprivacyoftheconcernedparty.Thegroundmentionedintheapplication
filedbythePetitionerbeforetheCPIOasalsothegroundmentionedinthe
12
mmj
Atthisstage,itwouldbenecessarytorefertotheJudgmentofthe
18of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
wp875313(reserve)
ApexCourtinGirishRamchandraDeshpande'scase(supra)andR.K.Jain's
C
ou
rt
case(Supra)asalsothejudgmentofthe5MemberBenchoftheCommission.
ig
h
saidcase,lendingandborrowingfrombanksandotherfinancialinstitutions,
thedetailsofthegiftssaidtohavebeenacceptedbytheRespondentNo.3were
alsosought.TheApexCourtobservedthattheinformationsoughtmostlyfinds
place in the Income Tax Returns of the Respondent No.3. The Apex Court
further observed that the details disclosed by a person in his Income Tax
ba
y
Returnsispersonalinformationwhichstandsexemptedfromdisclosureunder
clause(j)ofSection8(1)ofthesaidAct,unlessinvolveslargerpublicinterest
andtheCPIOortheStatePublicInformationOfficerortheAppellateAuthority
om
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:
19of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
C
ou
institutions.Further,hehasalsosoughtforthe
details of gifts stated to have accepted by the
third respondent, his family members and
friendsandrelativesatthemarriageofhisson.
Theinformationmostlysoughtforfindsaplace
in the income tax returns of the third
respondent.Thequestionthathascomeupfor
consideration is whether the abovementioned
informationsoughtforqualifiestobe"personal
information"asdefinedinclause(j)ofSection
8(1)oftheRTIAct.
rt
wp875313(reserve)
om
ba
y
ig
h
12. WeareinagreementwiththeCICandthecourts
belowthatthedetailscalledforbythepetitioner
i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third
respondent, show cause notices and orders of
censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be
personalinformationasdefinedinclause(j)of
Section8(1)oftheRTIAct.Theperformanceof
an employee/officer in an organization is
primarily a matter between the employee and
the employer and normally those aspects are
governedbytheserviceruleswhichfallunder
the expression "personal information", the
disclosure of which hasnorelationshipto any
public activity or public interest. On the other
hand, the disclosure of which would cause
unwarranted invasion of privacy of that
individual. Of course, in a given case, if the
CentralPublicInformationOfficerortheState
Public Information Officer of the Appellate
Authority is satisfied that the larger public
interest justifies the disclosure of such
information,appropriateorderscouldbepassed
butthepetitionercannotclaimthosedetailsasa
matterofright.
13. Thedetailsdisclosedbyapersoninhisincome
tax returns are" personal information" which
standexemptedfromdisclosureunderclause(j)
ofSection8(1)oftheRTIAct,unlessinvolvesa
mmj
20of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
C
ou
rt
wp875313(reserve)
13
InsofarastheJudgmentinR.K.Jain'scase(supra)isconcerned,
thefactswereidenticalasthefactsinGirishRamchandraDeshpande'scase
ig
h
inasmuchastheinformationrelatingtotheservicerecordofthethirdparty
wassoughtbythePetitionerwhichwasdeniedonthegroundthatthesameis
personalinformationwhichstandsexemptedunderSection8(1)(j)ofthesaid
ba
y
thereafter concluded that the said information could not be provided and
accordinglyaffirmedtheJudgmentoftheDivisionBenchoftheHighCourt.
om
Paragraph21ofthesaidreportismaterialandisreproducedhereinunder:
mmj
21of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
wp875313(reserve)
14
rt
Commissionisconcerned,the5MemberBenchhaswhilstdecidingtheAppeal
C
ou
HencewhatflowsfromtheJudgmentsoftheApexCourtisthat
ig
h
15
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
ba
y
information.Intheinstantcase,thereasonsetforthinthefirstapplication
filedbythePetitionerbeforethePublicInformationOfficerhardlymakesouta
casefortheinformationtobedisclosedonthegroundofpublicinterest.Inso
om
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 :::
wp875313(reserve)
theIncomeTaxReturnsoftheRespondentNo.3fortheprecedingthreeyears.
rt
ThePetitionerisinfactseekingtheinformationbyquestioningthemannerin
C
ou
whichtheIncomeTaxDepartmentfunctions.SincethePetitionerisseeking
information relating to the Respondent No.3 the Petitioner was required to
demonstrate as to how the disclosure of the information relating to the
RespondentNo.3wouldservepublicinterest.Asindicatedabove,thePetitioner
ig
h
hasmadeageneralandsweepingstatementwhichcanhardlybesaidtosatisfy
thetestofdisclosurebeingmadeinpublicinterest.
ThePetitionerhassoughttoassailtherelianceplacedbytheCIC
on the judgment in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case (supra) on the
ba
y
groundthatthesamedoesnotlaydownanylawandthatthesamehasbeen
renderedwithoutconsideringthejudgmentoftheApexCourtinPUCL'scase
and R.Rajgopal's case (supra). In the context of the challenge to the
om
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 :::
wp875313(reserve)
andtheemployeeandthattheinformationfallswithintheexpressionpersonal
rt
C
ou
ig
h
same being part of the Income Tax Returns, is personal information which
standsexemptedfromthedisclosureunderSubSection(j)ofSection8(1)of
thesaidAct.TheApexCourtasindicatedaboveafterhavingrecordedthesaid
findingfurtherobservedthatinagivencaseiftheCPIOortheStatePublic
InformationOfficerortheAppellateAuthorityissatisfiedthatthelargerpublic
ba
y
interestjustifiesthedisclosureofsuchinformationappropriateorderscouldbe
passed,butthePetitionercannotclaimthesaiddetailsasamatterofright.
HencetheApexCourtin GirishRamchandra Deshpande'scase(Supra)was
om
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 :::
wp875313(reserve)
rt
Deshpande'scase(supra)laydownanylawhastoberejected.Inmyviewthe
C
ou
relianceplacedbythePetitioneronthejudgmentsoftheApexCourtreported
in1979(3)SupremeCourtCase745,1992(1)SupremeCourtCases489and
ig
h
misplaced,asthesaidjudgmentshavebeenrenderedinthefactualcontext
prevailinginthesaidcases.HenceinsofaraswhethertheIncomeTaxReturns
fallintheexemptedcategorytheissuehasbeenconcludedbytheApexCourt
R.K.Jain'scase(supra).
16
ba
y
SincethePetitionerseemstobebasinghiscaseonthepurityof
electionsandprobityinpubliclife,beforeadvertingtothetwojudgmentsof
om
theApexCourtinthetwoPUCLcases,itwouldbenecessarytorefertothe
relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. By the
amendment carried out in the year 2002, Section 33A and 33B have been
introducedintheRepresentationofthePeopleAct.IntermsofSection33A,a
candidateshallapartfromanyinformationwhichheisrequiredtofurnishin
hisnominationhasalsotofurnishinformationastowhetherheisaccusedof
anyoffencepunishablewithimprisonmentfortwoyearsormoreinapending
caseinwhichachargehasbeenframed,whetherhehasbeenconvictedofan
mmj
25of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
wp875313(reserve)
rt
C
ou
aftertheinformationisfurnishedtohimundersubsection(1)displaysthe
saidinformationbydisplayingacopyofthesaidaffidavitataconspicuous
placeinhisoffice.Section33Bprovidesthatnocandidateisliabletodisclose
orfurnishanysuchinformationinrespectofhiselectionwhichisnotrequired
ig
h
tobedisclosedorfurnishedundertheActortherulesmadethereunder.
Section125Awhichhasalsobeenintroducedbytheamendment
oftheyear2002providesforprosecutionifthecandidatefailstofurnishthe
information specified in Section 33A or gives false information which he
ba
y
knowsorhasreasontobelievetobefalse.Henceareadingoftheaforesaid
provisionsdisclosethattohavefreeandfairelectionsandtobringpurityinthe
electoralprocessinthecountryandtobringprobityinpubliclifethatcertain
om
electoralreformswereintroducedwhicharenowreflectedintheframingof
Section33AandSection125AoftheRepresentationofthePeopleAct.Hence
mmj
26of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
wp875313(reserve)
rt
informationinrespectofthecandidatetotheextentmentionedinSection33A,
C
ou
itisnotopenforacitizentocontendthatheseekscertaininformationtocross
checktheinformationwhichhasbeenrevealedbythecandidateatthetimeof
filingofhisnomination.Iftheinformationfurnishedbyacandidateisfalse,he
canbeprosecutedunderSection125AofthesaidAct.Intheinstantcase,as
ig
h
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.
ba
y
ThePetitionerpossiblybeingawareofthesaidpositionhasthereforesoughtto
contendthatfilingoftheIncomeTaxReturnsisapublicactivity.Iamafraid
thesaidcontentionisthoroughlymisconceivedasfilingofIncomeTaxReturns
om
saidinformationisheldbytheIncomeTaxDepartmentinafiduciarycapacity,
thesamecannotbedirectedtoberevealedunlesstheprerequisitesforthe
samearesatisfied.
17
(supra). The said judgment concerns the directions issued by the Election
mmj
27of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
wp875313(reserve)
CommissionofIndiaunderArticle324oftheConstitutionofIndia.TheApex
rt
Court has summed up the legal and constitutional position which emerges
C
ou
fromthedirectionsissuedbytheElectionCommissionofIndiainParagraph46
ofthesaidjudgment.Paragraph46ofthesaidjudgment,isforthesakeof
readyreferencereproducedhereinunder:
ig
h
1. ThejurisdictionoftheElectionCommissioniswide
enoughto includeallpowersnecessaryforsmooth
conductofelectionsandtheword`electionsisused
in a wide sense to include the entire process of
election which consists of several stages and
embracesmanysteps.
om
ba
y
2. Thelimitationonplenarycharacterofpoweriswhen
theParliamentorStateLegislaturehasmadeavalid
lawrelatingtoorinconnectionwithelections,the
Commissionisrequiredtoactinconformitywiththe
saidprovisions.Incasewherelawissilent,Articleis
areservoirofpowertoactfortheavowedpurposeof
havingfreeandfairelection.Constitutionhastaken
careofleavingscopeforexerciseofresiduarypower
bytheCommissioninitsownrightasacreatureof
the Constitutionintheinfinitevarietyofsituations
that may emerge from time to time in a large
democracy, as every contingency could not be
foreseen or anticipated by the enacted laws or the
rules. By issuing necessary directions, Commission
can fill the vacuum till there is legislation on the
subject. In Kanhiya Lal Omar's case, the Court
construed the expressions superintendence,
direction and control in Article 324 (1) and held
that a direction may mean an order issued to a
particularindividualorapreceptwhichmayhaveto
followanditmaybespecificorageneralorderand
mmj
28of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
wp875313(reserve)
rt
om
ba
y
ig
h
C
ou
4. Tomaintainthepurityofelectionsandinparticular
tobringtransparencyintheprocessofelection,the
Commission can ask the candidates about the
expenditureincurredbythepoliticalpartiesandthis
transparency in process of election would include
transparencyofacandidatewhoseekselectionorre
election.Inademocracy,theelectoralprocesshasa
strategic role.Thelittle manofthiscountrywould
havebasicelementaryrighttoknowfullparticulars
ofacandidatewhoistorepresenthiminParliament
mmj
29of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
wp875313(reserve)
rt
wherelawstobindhislibertyandpropertymaybe
enacted.
C
ou
2.
ig
h
1.
om
ba
y
mmj
30of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
wp875313(reserve)
18
InsofarasthenextjudgmentoftheApexCourtin P.U.C.L.and
rt
another's case (supra) is concerned, the Apex Court was considering the
C
ou
challengeraisedtoSection33BoftheRepresentationofthePeopleAct.The
ApexCourtwasconsideringthedisclosureofinformationbyacandidateunder
Section33AofthesaidActinthecontextoftherighttoprivacywhichis
protectedunderArticle21oftheConstitutionofIndia.Theobservationsofthe
ig
h
ApexCourtinparagraph49ofthesaidjudgmentarematerialandareforthe
sakeofreadyreferencereproducedhereinunder:
om
19
ba
y
49 ItistobestatedthattheElectionCommissionhas
fromtimetotimeissuedinstructions/orderstomeet
withthesituationwherethefieldisunoccupiedby
thelegislation.Hence,thenormsandmodalitiesto
carryoutandgiveeffecttotheaforesaiddirections
should be drawn up properly by the Election
Commission as early as possible and in any case
withintwomonths.
Inmyview,theaforesaidjudgmentscanhardlyfurtherthecaseof
the Petitioner to contend that since the Respondent No.3 being a people's
representative,hisrighttoprivacywouldnotbeaffectediftheinformation
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 considering the provisions of the said Act, which is a self contained
code.
mmj
31of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
wp875313(reserve)
ThePetitionerhasalsosoughttoplacerelianceonthejudgmentof
rt
20
C
ou
the Apex Court in R Rajagopal's case (supra). The said judgment also
concernstherighttoprivacyunderArticle21oftheConstitutionofIndiaand
thecaseconcernsthepublicationoftheautobiographyofone AutoShankar
whowasconvictedfor6murdersandwassentencedtodeathandwhohad
ig
h
writtenhisautobiographyinjailandhashandedoverthesametohiswifewith
theknowledgeandapprovalofthejailauthoritiesforbeingdeliveredtohis
advocatewitharequesttopublishthesameinthePetitioner'smagazine.It
seems the autobiography depicted a close nexus between the prisoner and
severalIASandIPSandotherofficerssomeofwhomwereallegedtobehis
ba
y
om
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 :::
wp875313(reserve)
justifiedtheobservation bystatingthatonceamatterbecomesamatterof
rt
C
ou
legitimatesubjectforcommentbypressandmediaamongothers.Inmyview,
thesaidjudgmentdoesnotfurtherthecaseofthePetitionerinseekingthe
informationsoughtonthegroundthatnorightofprivacyoftheRespondent
No.3isaffected,infactthesaidjudgmentsupportsthecaseoftheRespondent
ig
h
No.3astheApexCourthasobservedthattherighttoprivacywouldhaveto
givewayifwhatispublishedisfrompublicrecords.Intheinstantcase,the
recordsmaintainedbytheIncomeTaxDepartmentinrespectofanindividual
whoisanassesseebeforeitcannotbesaidtobeapublicrecordasitiswell
settledthattheIncomeTaxDepartmentholdsthesaidrecordsinafiduciary
21
ba
y
capacity.
ThelearnedcounselforthePetitionerhassoughttoplacereliance
om
onthejudgmentofalearnedSingleJudgeofthisCourtreportedinthematter
11
ofKashinathJ.Shetyevs.DinshVaghela
.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 :::
wp875313(reserve)
Commission'sCase(supra).TheApexCourtafterobservingthatinformation
rt
whichrelatestopersonalinformationrecordedbySection8(1)(j)ofthesaid
C
ou
Act stands exempted and can be disclosed only if the public interest so
warrants,hasthereafterheldthatthesaidexemptionisastatutoryexemption
whichmustoperateasaruleandonlyinexceptionalcases,woulddisclosure
bepermittedthattooforreasonstoberecordeddemonstratingsatisfactionto
ig
h
thetestoflargerpublicinterest.Insofarasthecompetingclaimsbetween
largerpublicinterestandtheinvasionofprivacy,theobservationsoftheApex
23 Thesatisfactionhastobearrivedatbythe
authorities objectively and the consequences of
suchdisclosurehavetobeweighedwithregardto
the circumstances of a given case. The decision
hastobebasedonobjectivesatisfactionrecorded
forensuringthatlargerpublicinterestoutweighs
unwarrantedinvasionofprivacyorotherfactors
stated in the provision. Certain matters,
particularly, in relation to appointment, are
required to be dealt with great confidentiality.
Theinformationmaycometoknowledgeofthe
authorityasaresultofdisclosurebyotherswho
give that information in confidence and with
completefaith,integrityandfidelity. Secrecyof
such information shall be maintained, thus,
briningitwithintheambitoffiduciarycapacity.
Similarly,theremaybecaseswherethedisclosure
has no relationship to any public activity or
interest or it may even cause unwarranted
invasion of privacy of the individual. On these
protections have to be given their due
implementation as they spring from statutory
exemptions. It is not a decision simpliciter
betweenprivateinterestandpublicinterest.Itis
om
ba
y
hereinunder:
Courtinparagraph23ofthesaidjudgmentarematerialandarereproduced
mmj
34of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
C
ou
rt
wp875313(reserve)
ig
h
Sincetherighttoprivacyhasbeenrecognizedasafundamental
righttowhichacitizenisentitledto,therefore,unlesstheconditionmentioned
inSection8(1)(j)issatisfied,theinformationcannotbeprovided.Hencethe
burdenontheApplicantismuchmoreonerousthanmaybearoutinecase.As
indicated in the earlier part of this judgment the reason mentioned in the
ba
y
originalapplicationassupplementedbythegroundsintheFirstAppealhardly
makeoutacaseofpublicinterest.Henceintheinstantcase,thesaidburden
cannotsaidtohavebeendischargedbythePetitioner.Hencethefindingofthe
om
FirstAppellateAuthorityaswellastheCICthatthePetitionerhasnotmade
outanycasefordisclosureoftheinformationonthegroundofpublicinterest
cannotbefaultedwith.
23
Section8(1)(j)ofthesaidActandhassoughttocontendthattheauthorities
belowhavenotconsideredtheapplicationofthePetitioneronthetouchstone
of the said Proviso. It was the submission of the learned counsel for the
mmj
35of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
wp875313(reserve)
PetitionerbasedonthesaidprovisothatthePetitionerwouldhavetofurnish
rt
thesaidinformationhavingregardtotheprovisoastheinformationsoughtby
C
ou
thePetitionercannotbedeniedtotheParliamentortheStateLegislature.In
supportofthesaidcontentionthePetitionerhassoughttoplacerelianceonthe
judgmentofaDivisionBenchofthisCourtinSurupSinghNaik'scase(supra).
InsofarasthesaidjudgmentoftheDivisionBenchisconcerned,towhichthis
ig
h
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
ba
y
prevailinginthesaidcase.ThefactsinthesaidcasewasthatthePetitioner
SurupSinghNaikwasaMinisterintheStateGovernmentattherelevanttime
whowaspunishedforcontemptofcourtbytheApexCourtbyjudgmentdated
om
10052006andwastoundergoimprisonmentforonemonth. Itseemsthat
thePetitionersurrenderedtothepoliceinMumbaion12052006.On1405
2006thePetitionerwasshiftedtooneoftheGovernmentHospitalsi.e.theSir
JJHospitalonaccountofsuspectedheartproblemaswellaslowsugarand
bloodpressure.TheRespondentNo.5inthesaidPetitionwhowasaprivate
citizenhadbyhisapplicationdated27052006soughtinformationfromthe
CPIOofthesaidSirJJHospitalofthemedicalreportsofthePetitioner.Inhis
applicationitwassetoutthatitwasinpublicinteresttoknowaboutwhya
mmj
36of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
wp875313(reserve)
convictisallowedtostayintheairconditionedcomfortofthehospitaland
rt
therehadbeenintensivequestioningaboutthisaspectinthemediaandthe
C
ou
peoplesmind,andthatthereis,therefore,alegitimatedoubtaboutthetrue
reasonsfortheconvictbeingaccommodatedinairconditionedcomfortofthe
hospital.TheCPIOdidnotfurnishthenecessaryinformation.TheRespondent
No.5thereafterfiledanAppealbeforetheRespondentNo.3whichalsodidnot
ig
h
meetwithanysuccess. TheRespondentNo.5thereforepreferredaSecond
Appeal before the Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 i.e. Second
Appellate Authority allowed the Appeal and directed the information to be
provided to the Respondent No.5 which order was challenged before the
Division Benchof thisCourtbywayofthe saidWritPetition.TheDivision
ba
y
Benchcrystallizedthequestionthatitwasrequiredtoanswernamelytheright
ofanindividualtokeepcertainmattersconfidentialontheonehandandright
ofthepublictobeinformedontheotherconsideringtheprovisionsofthesaid
om
Act.TheDivisionBenchobservedthatitwasconcernedwithacasewherea
personconvictedforcontemptofcourt,doessuchapersonduringtheperiod
mmj
37of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
wp875313(reserve)
undertheAct.TheDivisionBenchwentontoobservethathavingregardto
rt
theplenarypowerswhichthelegislatureenjoys,suchinformationcannotbe
C
ou
deniedtoParliamentorStatelegislaturebyanypublicauthority.TheDivision
Bench concluded that the records of the institution i.e. Sir J J Group of
Hospitals,therefore,,oughttobemadeavailabletoParliamentortheState
Legislature.TheParliament/Legislatureand/oritsCommitteesareentitledto
ig
h
therecordseveniftheybeconfidentialorpersonalrecordsofapatient.Hence
thejudgmentoftheDivisionBenchofthisCourtwasrevolvingaroundthe
factsinthesaidcase,whereaMinisterinOfficewaspunishedforContemptof
Court and was admitted to a Government Hospital and was being treated
therein and the suspicion was that he had got himself admitted to avoid
ba
y
incarceration. Thesaidjudgment,inmyview,cannotbeextendedtomean
thatanyandeveryinformationistobeprovidedtotheParliamentortheState
Legislature.ThishastobeviewedinthecontextofthefactsofSurupSingh
om
Naik'scase(supra)whereintheDivisionBenchofthisCourtwasoftheview
thattheinformationrelatingtothepatientSurupSinghNaikcouldnothave
beendeniedtotheParliamentorStateLegislature.Inmyview,therefore,the
judgmentoftheDivisionBenchofthisCourtdoesnotinanymannerfurther
thecaseofthePetitionerbasedontheprovisotoSection8(1)(j)ofthesaid
Act.
24
mmj
TheprovisotoSection8(1)(j)hadalsocomeupforconsideration
38of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
wp875313(reserve)
beforeaLearnedSingleJudgeoftheDelhiHighCourtinVijayPrakash'scase
rt
(supra). Before The Learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court the
C
ou
JudgmentoftheDivisionBenchofthisCourtwascited.TheLearnedSingle
JudgeobservedthatheisunpersuadedbythereasoningofthisCourtwhich
appearstohavegivenundue,evenoverwhelmingdeferencetoParliamentary
privilege.TheLearnedSingleJudgeobservedthatwerethatthetrueposition,
ig
h
theenactmentofSection8(1)(j)woulditselfberenderedmeaninglessandthe
basic safeguard bereft of content. The Learned Judge concluded that if the
provisoistobeinterpretedinamannerthattheParliamenthastherightto
demand any information then there would be nothing left to the right to
privacywhichhasbeenelevatedtothestatusofafundamentalrightbyseveral
25
ba
y
judgmentsoftheSupremeCourt.
om
interpretedinthemannerwhichtheLearnedCounselforthePetitionerseeks
todo. Thereisalsoabasicfallacyinthecontentionraisedonbehalfofthe
mmj
39of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::
wp875313(reserve)
context,itisalsorelevanttorefertoSection75AoftheRepresentationofthe
rt
PeopleActunderwhicheveryelectedcandidateforaHouseofParliamenthas
C
ou
ig
h
CounciloftheStatei.e.Rajyasabha.Hencethereareadequateprovisionsinthe
RepresentationofthePeopleActunderwhichtheinformationsoughtistobe
providedtotheParliamenttotheextentmentionedinthesaidprovisionsand
26
ba
y
contendthattheexemptionprovidedinthesaidSectionwouldnotoperate.
Forthereasonsaforestatedtheimpugnedorderdated1552013
passedbytheCentralInformationCommissioner,confirmingtheorderspassed
om
by the First Appellate Authority and the CPIO does not suffer from any
illegalityorinfirmityforthiscourttointerfereinitsWritJurisdiction.TheWrit
mmj
[R.M.SAVANT,J]
40of40
::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2015 20:53:49 :::