Public Funds Used For Employee's LTC, CGHS Reimbursement Don't Justify Disclosure Of Personal Details Under RTI: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that merely because certain benefits availed by a government employee involve expenditure from public funds, it does not make the underlying personal information liable to disclosure under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

Justice Amit Mahajan made the observation while dismissing a plea challenging a Central Information Commission (CIC) order refusing disclosure of personal information concerning a Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) employee.

The petitioner had sought details of the employee's Leave Travel Concession (LTC), including tickets booked for his dependents, LTC settlement forms, details of CGHS medical facilities availed by his dependents, medical bills, family declaration forms and details of other LTC journeys undertaken with his dependents.

The DGCA's Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) had rejected the request under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts certain personal information from disclosure.

The first appellate authority upheld the decision, following which the CIC also dismissed the petitioner's second appeal.

Vide the impugned order, the CIC held that the information constituted third-party personal information and that no larger public interest warranting its disclosure had been established.

Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that since the information related to LTC and CGHS benefits involving public funds, it ought to be disclosed in larger public interest.

Rejecting the contention, the Court reiterated that the right to information is not an unqualified right and that Section 8(1)(j) protects personal information where its disclosure has no relationship with public activity or interest, or would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless larger public interest justifies disclosure.

The Court noted that the petitioner was not merely seeking an aggregate figure showing expenditure incurred by the DGCA towards LTC or medical reimbursement.

Instead, it said that the information sought related to identifiable family members, their travel, medical treatment, medical expenditure and family declarations furnished by the employee in relation to his dependents.

“…such information, by its very nature, concerns the private affairs of the concerned employee and more significantly, of his family members who are third parties,” the Court observed.

“Additionally, merely stating that the benefits in question may have involved expenditure from public funds cannot not, by itself, render the underlying personal information liable to disclosure, that too when the Petitioner has not demonstrated any overriding larger public interest which would warrant disclosure of the personal information of the concerned employee and his family members,” the Court said.

It also rejected the petitioner's contention that the information was sought to pursue vigilance complaints, holding that the same could not create an independent right to access information which was otherwise exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.

The authorities had also pointed out that the petitioner was married to the sister of the concerned DGCA employee and that matrimonial disputes had arisen between the parties, with divorce proceedings having been initiated.

In this backdrop, the Court observed that the RTI mechanism cannot be permitted to become a means to “settle personal scores” or pursue grievances arising from matrimonial disputes, particularly when the information sought pertains to the personal affairs of a third party.

The Court accordingly dismissed the petition and upheld the denial of the information sought.