CANARA BANK -VS- C.S. SHYAM & ORS.

Author- KIRUBHA RT, GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE – DHARMAPURI

CASE DETAILS

      i)          Judgement Cause Title / Case Name

Canara Bank -Vs- C.S. Shyam & Ors.

    ii)          Case Number

Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009

   iii)          Judgement Date

August 31, 2017

   iv)          Court

In the Supreme Court of India

     v)          Quorum / Constitution of Bench

Abhay Manohar Sapre & R.K. Agrawal

   vi)          Author / Name of Judges

Abhay Manohar Sapre

 vii)          Citation

Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009

viii)          Legal Provisions Involved

Section 6, Section 8(1), Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

Information should be given to every citizen of India, the Right to Information Act made it legal. The citizens of India can apply through online applications and ask for any information they need but, the only condition is, that it must be in public nature which means a large amount of people should benefit through such information. One did not ask for any personal information of another this will lead to illegal activity and the violation of the right to privacy protected under the Constitution.

PERSONAL INFORMATION:

Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, [“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advice, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;][1]

The Constitution of India also provides the right to privacy under Article 21. This will protect one’s personal information from unauthorized access. The right to privacy is the Fundamental Right under the Indian Constitution. When there is a violation, we can approach the Court for remedies.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION:   

Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, [“right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to—

  • inspection of work, documents, and records;
  • taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records;
  • taking certified samples of material;
  • obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes, or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;][2]

The main objective of the right to information is to promote transparency. The information demanded should be for the general public interest. It must not be regarding any personal information which was protected by the public authorities.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Procedural Background of the Case:

  • The Respondent applied an application to the Public Information Officer but it was rejected as it was personal information and did not hold any public interest.
  • So, the Respondent filed an appeal to the Chief Public Information Officer. He also upheld the order of Public Information Officer.
  • The Respondent further filed an appeal to the Central Information Commission and they ordered to provide information to the Respondent as in his application.
  • So, the aggrieved Appellant had filed a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala located at Ernakulam but a single judge disposed of it.
  • Further a Writ appeal was filed by the Appellant Bank to the High Court but was rejected by the Division Bench as it ordered to abide by the order of the Central Information Commission.
  • So, the Appellant bank filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of India.

Factual Background of the Case:

  • Under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter C.S. Shyam) on 01.08.2006 applied to the Public Information Officer of Canara Bank to receive information about the transfer and posting of all the clerical staff from 01.01. 2002 to 31.07.2006 of all branches of Canara Bank.
  • As per Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 the Public Information Officer rejected the application filed by the respondent as this information was not depending on general public interest or public activity.
  • So, the aggrieved respondent further appealed to the Chief Public Information Officer. He upheld the same viewpoint as the Public Information Officer. Respondent No.1 further appealed to the Central Public Information Officer, then directions were given to the Bank to provide the information demanded by the respondent.
  • Aggrieved by this order, the appellant Bank filed a writ petition to the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, but a single judge dismissed the writ petition so they filed a writ appeal in the High Court of Kerala. The Division Bench also dismissed the writ appeal and ordered it to abide by the decision of the Central Information Commission.
  • At the final stage the Supreme Court analyzed the counsel’s arguments and records of the case and decided that the appeal filed by the Appellant Bank was allowed and the application regarding information sought by the Respondent was rejected.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

  • Whether the appeal filed by the Canara Bank will be allowed or not?
  • Whether the Central Information Commission’s decision to allow the application for information regarding the transfer and posting of clerical staff of the Bank was correct?
  • Whether the information demanded by the respondent of a personal nature or a public nature?

PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

  • The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, deals with exemption from disclosure of information. Subsection 8(1)(j) dealt with not disclosing any personal information otherwise, it will lead to a violation of the right to privacy of the individual. So, the appeal filed by the Appellant should be allowed.
  • The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted to set aside the impugned order of the Central Information Commission and dismiss the application filed by the Respondent regarding the information.
  • The information demanded by the Respondent was not in the public nature as it was not a benefit for large public interest and it was totally depends on the private nature.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

  • The counsels for Respondent submitted that under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, one can obtain any information from the public authorities through writing or in electronic forms with their official language. So, the appeal filed by the Appellant should be set aside.
  • The counsels for the Respondent submitted to allow the application filed by the Respondent regarding the information and allow the order of the High Court.
  • The information demanded by the Respondent was in public nature as it was not only on the respondent, it depended on all the clerical staff of all the branches of the Canara Bank. So, it is absolutely not a private interest.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

  • Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, 1949 deals with the “protection of life and personal liberty—No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”[3]
  • Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 deals with “request for obtaining information—(1) A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to–”[4]
  • Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 deals with “Exemption from disclosure of information (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,– (j) 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 Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.”[5]

JUDGEMENT

RATIO DECIDENDI:

  • The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India decided this case by analyzing both Counsel’s arguments and records of the case and decided to allow the appeal filed by the Appellant.
  • In the case of Girish Ramachandra Deshpande Vs Central Information Commissioner & Ors[6], Girish was the Petitioner who applied to seek a piece of personal information about one of the employees who had been working in the sub-Regional Office Akola. All the authorities refused to provide such information as it is a personal form of information. So, the Petitioner appealed to the High Court but it was rejected and he further, appealed to the Supreme Court and it allowed the order of the High Court.
  • The legal issue regarding personal information was already dealt with the following decisions of the Supreme Court with the case laws Girish Ramachandra Deshpande Vs Central Information Commission and R.K. Jain Vs Union of India & Anr[7].
  • The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal and made directions for the High Court and the Central Information Commission to restore their orders for wrongly allowing the application of the Respondent.

OBITER DICTA:

  • The Hon’ble Bench of the Supreme Court of India gave an opinion from the above-mentioned case laws, Respondent No.1 worked in the Bank so it seems to be personal and also the information he asked for was not in the larger public interest Hence it binds the principle of law that not to violate the right to privacy of an individual.
  • For these reasons the Hon’ble Supreme Court decided that the Respondent misunderstood Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. So, the application filed by the Respondent and the orders passed by the Central Information Commission and the High Court were rejected by this Court and allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

Hence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India correctly decided the case by following the laws and principles without violating anyone’s rights. The appeal allowed and the application of the respondent rejected by the Court is absolute justice. The court protects one’s personal information by deciding this case. The Court follows the principle of Natural Justice and decides the case appropriately.

REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred:

  • Girish Ramachandra Deshpande Vs Central Information Commissioner & Ors (2013) 1 SCC 212.
  • R.K. Jain Vs Union of India & Anr. (2013) 14 SCC 794.

Important Statutes Referred:

  • The Right to Information Act, 2005
  • Constitution of India, 1949

[1] Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005

[2] Section 2(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

[3] Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, 1949.

[4] Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

[5] Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005

[6] Girish Ramachandra Deshpande Vs Central Information Commissioner & Ors (2013) 1 SCC 212.

[7]R.K. Jain Vs Union of India & Anr (2013) 14 SCC 794.

Share this :
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
Author picture