Skip to main content

Personal Information Exemption Not Available To Corporate Entity Under RTI

In Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CCITM/A/2017/182415-BJ, Mr. Subramanian K Ansari vs CPIO, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, the applicant Subramanian K Ansari had sought information from the Income Tax Department about the balance sheets and profit and loss accounts of last 10 years of the Cambata Aviation Ltd, which had ceased operations in 2016.

The applicant alleged that M/s Cambata Aviation Pvt. Ltd had deprived salary/wages to more than 2100 employees since March, 2016 on the pretext of bad condition of finance and loss in the business resulting in extreme financial hardships to him and hundreds of other employees. He further alleged that the said Company was also willfully defaulting in payment of statutory dues of PF/ST/LIC/ESIC and Credit Society, etc. Despite citing financial difficulties, the company had recruited more than 800 employees in 2014 and 2015, and in this backdrop the employee wanted to know the truth of its claims.

The Public Information Officer denied disclosure citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts disclosure of personal information. The First Appellate Authority concurred with this view.

In second appeal, the CIC held that the exemption of 'personal information' under Section 8(1)(j) was not applicable to corporate entities.

The Central Information Commission however held that the expression "personal information" as used in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the Act has to be read in the context of information relating to an individual and that the ordinary usage of the word "personal" is in the context of an individual human being and not a corporate entity and that an employee is entitled to know under Right To Information Act 2005 about the financial status of the employer-company which has been defaulting in payment of salaries the disclosure of information in larger public interest.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more