After politicians and judges of the Supreme Court, now the assets of babus have also been prised open to public scrutiny by RTI. In a landmark order, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has said that disclosure of information such as assets of a public servant, routinely collected by the public authority, should be made available to the public under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
While passing the order related to the asset disclosure of an officer with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said this disclosure could not be construed as an invasion of the privacy of an individual and therefore it should be made public under the Act.
With the ruling that disclosure of assets by a babu is no longer a matter just between him and his superiors, officers have been put on a par with politicians as well as judges of the Supreme Court who recently, bowing to pressure, agreed to let people peek into their material possessions.
The case came up for hearing before the CIC after an RTI applicants query asking for details of assets and liabilities of the deputy health officer of MCD was rejected by both the PIO and the appellate authority.
UP resident Rajbir Singh had asked for details of immovable property declared by Ashok Rawat who was the deputy health officer with MCD. He had also asked for details of assets, which the officer had bought for more than Rs 10,000 during his service with date of disclosure made to the department.
But both the PIO and the first appellate authority rejected the query under Section 8(1)( j) of the RTI Act. Information can be exempted under this section if it relates to personal information and its disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
When the case came up for hearing , the CIC said that to qualify for this exemption, the information must be of a personal nature. Various public authorities routinely ask for personal information from citizens, and this is clearly a public activity. The information sought in this case by the appellant has certainly been obtained in the pursuit of a public activity, the order said.
RIGHT TO KNOW
The petitioner had sought details of the assets and liabilities of Delhis deputy health officer under RTI However, both the principal information officer and the appellate authority rejected the query citing a section which exempts such information if it relates to personal information or is not in public interest CIC ruled that such disclosure cannot be construed as an invasion of the privacy of an individual and therefore it should be made public under the act Various public authorities in performing their functions routinely ask for personal information from citizens, and this is clearly a public activity.
When a person applies for a job, or gives information about himself to a public authority as an employee, or asks for a permission, licence or authorisation, all these are public activities. The information sought in this case by the appellant has certainly been obtained in the pursuit of a public activity
