The Delhi High Court has held that identifiable family members’ travel, medical, and declaration details constitute third-party personal information, and that the RTI mechanism cannot be used to pursue matrimonial disputes. Essentially, information relating to identifiable family members’ LTC travel, CGHS medical treatment, medical bills, and family declaration forms constitute personal information of third parties exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The Court clarified that mere involvement of public funds in reimbursement does not, by itself, strip personal information of its exempt character, and the claimant must affirmatively demonstrate a larger public interest. Bare assertions that the information is sought for vigilance purposes cannot create an independent right to access information otherwise exempted under the RTI Act.
The High Court said that RTI mechanism cannot be permitted to be used as a tool to settle personal scores or pursue grievances arising out of matrimonial disputes, particularly where the information pertains to the personal affairs of a third party. Further, where the information sought is not confined to an aggregate figure of expenditure but extends to private particulars of identifiable individuals, the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) is squarely attracted.
Briefly, the Petitioner, Sachin Kumar Daksh, filed an RTI application dated 24 June 2024 seeking personal information relating to a DGCA employee, Komal Prasad. The information sought included details of LTC availed by the employee from 22 October 2016 to 26 October 2016 to Andaman and Nicobar, LTC settlement forms, tickets booked for each dependent, final LTC settlement, CGHS medical facilities availed by all dependents since joining DGCA along with medical bills, family declaration forms submitted by the employee, and details of any other LTC trips undertaken with dependents.
The CPIO, DGCA, declined disclosure citing Rule 8(j) of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority dismissed the first appeal on 21 August 2024, finding no infirmity in the CPIO’s reply. The Second Appellate Authority/CIC dismissed the second appeal, holding that the information constituted third-party personal information exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and that no larger public interest had been established.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan observed that while the RTI Act seeks to promote transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities, the right to information is not an unqualified right. The legislature has consciously carved out Section 8 of the RTI Act, which envisages exemptions from disclosure, and Sub-Section (1)(j) thereof exempts information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies disclosure.
The Court noted that the information sought was not confined to an aggregate figure of expenditure incurred by DGCA on LTC or medical reimbursement, but extended to identifiable family members, their travel, medical treatment, medical expenditure, and family declarations furnished by the employee. In the factual context, such information concerned the private affairs of the employee and, more significantly, of his family members who were third parties and were not before the Court.
The Court further observed that the fact that some expenditure may have been reimbursed from public funds does not, by itself, result in the personal particulars connected with such expenditure ceasing to constitute personal information. The Petitioner had not demonstrated any overriding larger public interest warranting disclosure. The Court also observed that the Petitioner’s contention that he was seeking the information to pursue vigilance complaints could not, by itself, create an independent right to access information otherwise exempted.
