<<

INFORMATION COMMISSION Kamadhenu Co-operative Super Market Building First Floor, New No.379, , , – 600018. Case No. 22992/Enquiry/2009 Date of Enquiry: 30th December , 2009 at CHENNAI

Present: Thiru S. RAMAKRISHNAN, I.A.S.,(Retd.) State Chief Information Commissioner

Thiru G. RAMAKRISHNAN, I.A.S. (Retd.) State Information Commissioner

Petitioner: Thiru V. Madhav 31/1V, Maan Sarovar Raaja Apartments 11A, , , Chennai-600 116

Public Authority: The Public Information Officer, Council Department, Corporation of Chennai , No.1131, EVR Periyar Road Chennai-600 003 ==== The petitioner had asked for right to inspect the asset statements filed by the Councilors of the Chennai Corporation on his RTI petition 28-7-2009 and this was rejected by the PIO under Section 8(1)(j) on 17-8-2009. He appealed on 28-8-2009 and to the Commission on 22-9-2009. Not getting a reply, whereupon the Commission posted enquiry today.

Subsequent to the date on 4-11-2009, he was replied to by the appeallate authority also stating the samething. The public authority was represented and could not point out any examination whether any overwhelming public purpose existed. The petitioner when queried by the Commission also states that he has not stated any public purpose in his application and in the appeal petition he has stated that the candidates for election for MLAs and M.Ps. have to file affidavits containining the assets and liablity staement and they are kept on public record and hence on the same analogy no privacy should be claimed for the statement of assets and liabilities of the Corporation councilors. At the enquiry, the petitioner poisted that the Supreme Court Judgement in the Association of Democratic Rights case where the filing of personal information by MLAs and MPs under elections which is challenged before it would be a decision to be kept in mind in deciding this case. He also stated that the Supreme Court itself has held in that case that asset statements are not personal documents.

He also stated that the Commission itself as in case Nos. 16294/Enquiry/2008 and 4750/Enquiry/2009, taken a similar view with regard to the disclosure of assets statement of a large number of persons without specifically identifying any particular person in this regard.

The decision in this case was reserved for examination of the case referred to above.

It is seen on such an examination that the Commission has consistently held that when there is a clash of conflicting interests/rights as the right to privacy/tranparency the determinant will be the overwhelming public purpose which will have to be demonstrated by the petitioner and where it was not the petition has been rejected.

In the Association of Democratic Rights case, the ration was suitability of a person for an elected office to be exercised during election and not of continual assessment by a petitioner. The electorate has a legitimacy in a democracy, while an RTI petitioner is a self appointed invigilator without any legal rights except that of the RTI Act and it can be exercised only within the confines of the Act. The Act is for transparency of public records not in confilict with other extant rights like privacy, fiduciary duties. commercial confidences, etc and provides for no fishing expedition in the hope that some suspected misdeed may surface by trawling through a mass of private records. Unless a credible case of public purpose is established, other extant rights cannot be violated in favour of any right to transparency and since none has been made out here, the Commission cannot rule the action of Public Authority as violative of the RTI Act.

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

Orders approved on this the 22nd March, 2010, Under the Orders of the Commission ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Case No.22992/2009 To The Public Information Officer, Council Department, Corporation of Chennai Ripon Building, No.1131, EVR Periyar Road, Chennai-600 003

Case No.22992/2009 To Thiru V. Madhav 31/1V, Maan Sarovar Raaja Apartments 11A, Arcot Road, Porur, Chennai-600 116