‘Personal information given during census protected under Act'
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition seeking a direction to the census officer to disclose information on the “religion and faith” of Congress president Sonia Gandhi and her children Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi.
A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and A.K. Patnaik dismissed the petition filed by the former DGP of Haryana, P.C. Wadhwa, challenging a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that held personal information supplied to a census officer during the previous census could not be made public.
Senior counsel M.N. Krishnamani, appearing for the petitioner, argued that under Section 11 of the RTI Act, the information officer could furnish personal information after making a reference to the third party concerned and he could not arbitrarily decide not to disclose the information.
However, Justice Raveendran pointed out that as per Section 11, the information officer could make a reference to the party concerned only “if he intends to disclose” information. Since such information was protected under Section 8 (1) (j), he was not bound to disclose.” The Bench then dismissed the special leave petition.
The High Court had said: “It is evident that the petitioner is making efforts to make unjustified inroads into the privacy of the individuals, even if they are public figures and consequently the information cannot be made public. Information supplied to the census officer cannot be made public in view of the statutory bar imposed by Section 15 of the Census Act.”
Mr. Wadhwa had initially moved an application under the RTI Act, before the 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 public interest.”
After the request was declined, he moved the Central Information Commission and later the High Court.
The appellant submitted that Section 22 of the RTI Act would have an over-riding effect and the word ‘personal' under Section 8 (1) (j) would have to be construed in the light of the fact that the information as sought was of public figures and therefore the same could not be denied.
He also said Section 15 of the Census Act would have no effect on Section 22 of the RTI Act (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).
He sought quashing of the impugned judgment and a direction for disclosure of the information sought.
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition seeking a direction to the census officer to disclose information on the “religion and faith” of Congress president Sonia Gandhi and her children Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi.
A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and A.K. Patnaik dismissed the petition filed by the former DGP of Haryana, P.C. Wadhwa, challenging a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that held personal information supplied to a census officer during the previous census could not be made public.
Senior counsel M.N. Krishnamani, appearing for the petitioner, argued that under Section 11 of the RTI Act, the information officer could furnish personal information after making a reference to the third party concerned and he could not arbitrarily decide not to disclose the information.
However, Justice Raveendran pointed out that as per Section 11, the information officer could make a reference to the party concerned only “if he intends to disclose” information. Since such information was protected under Section 8 (1) (j), he was not bound to disclose.” The Bench then dismissed the special leave petition.
The High Court had said: “It is evident that the petitioner is making efforts to make unjustified inroads into the privacy of the individuals, even if they are public figures and consequently the information cannot be made public. Information supplied to the census officer cannot be made public in view of the statutory bar imposed by Section 15 of the Census Act.”
Mr. Wadhwa had initially moved an application under the RTI Act, before the 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 public interest.”
After the request was declined, he moved the Central Information Commission and later the High Court.
The appellant submitted that Section 22 of the RTI Act would have an over-riding effect and the word ‘personal' under Section 8 (1) (j) would have to be construed in the light of the fact that the information as sought was of public figures and therefore the same could not be denied.
He also said Section 15 of the Census Act would have no effect on Section 22 of the RTI Act (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).
He sought quashing of the impugned judgment and a direction for disclosure of the information sought.
No comments:
Post a Comment