Re: [HumJanenge] Wrong Interpretation of personal information by Central Information Commissioner Mr Rajiv Mathur

There are 2 type of records held by State - a) Public records and b)
Private records.

Private records cannot ordinarily be disclosed - period.
Public records may be disclosed in RTI subject to exclusions covered
under 81.a to 8.1.j.

Your problem Rakesh is that you did not factor in that Rajeev Mathur
is an ex-cop and therefore knows Indian Evidence Act. Had you
explained it my way he would have understood it. You got confused
between private records, private information and privacy. RM's fundas
are clear.

Sarbajit

On 11/15/12, RAKESH GUPTA <snehcs@gmail.com> wrote:
> all the decisions taken by CIc/ other orders held the information are only
> two types public information and non public information(are called personal
> information). This is absurd position, Then why there are other
> exemptions like 8(1)a to 8(1)(h).
> in the hearing even opposite party had agreed with my contention . That In
> case of real person information may be personal information and official/
> commercial information.seperate exemption to be invoked for both.
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Rakesh
>>
>> Since your email is not quite clear. let me summarise and explain.
>>
>> 1) Rakesh files RTI seeking "all" Income Tax records of some Registered
>> Trust in connection with a TEP he filed. Trust (3rd party objects -
>> denial
>> of privacy/personal details 8.1.j) and CPIO upholds denial. FAA then also
>> says information of "all" records too wide-ranging so also info denied
>> CPIO
>> upheld.
>>
>> 2) At CIC Rakesh says 8(1)(j) does not cover artificial bodies like
>> trusts
>> and cites a US SC decision FCC.v.AT&T. Rajeev Mathur says DHC hold
>> "person" also to include artificial person. Also SC in a case against CIC
>> has held IT records to be "personal information" so 1+1=0
>>
>> So what is the issue - that CIC should not obey DHC or SC judgments but
>> obey US SC ?.
>>
>> Ultimately you may be proved right after a 5-20 year legal battle, just
>> dont expect the CIC to do your job for you.
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:09 PM, <snehcs@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wrong Interpretation of personal information by Central Information
>>> Commissioner Mr Rajiv Mathur- in File No CIC /DS/A/2011/003075/RM order
>>> dated 06.11.2012
>>>
>>> Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held in the case of Jamia Milia Islamia
>>> Vs Ikramuddin (W.P.(C)No.5677/2011) decided on 22.11.11 that the person,
>>> as
>>> legally defined includes a juristic person.
>>> Facts of the Case
>>> 1. Applicant had sought a transaction detail (in short -title deed of
>>> real estate transaction) from the Public authority (these documents are
>>> registered with the Government and any person can sought the same-(any
>>> person can get copy of any title deed registered with the Registrar.
>>> kindly
>>> note Haryana Government is giving title deed of private person like Mr
>>> Rahul Gandhi with farmer / Mr Robert Vadra and publish related to scam
>>> of
>>> Congress ).
>>> 2. Central Information Commissioner Mr Rajiv Mathur refused to accept
>>> the
>>> copy of the decision , which summarise my oral submission . USA Supreme
>>> court Decision in FCC Vs AT & T ( Right to Privacy of corporation) case
>>> which held that corporate entity does not have personal information.
>>> 3. In short the above decision – individual have two kinds of
>>> information
>>> personal information (which may be exempt under Section 8(1) (j) and
>>> commercial information exempt under Section 8(1) (d). But Commercial
>>> organisation has only commercial information, which is exempt under
>>> Section
>>> 8(1)(d).
>>> 4. High Court held that information is not personal information and
>>> therefore, it should be disclosed to applicant .
>>> 5. In the above case, Court had not given its finding , whether
>>> artificial personal is exempt under Section 8(1)(j).
>>> With regards
>>> Rakesh gupta
>>>
>>>
>>> On , Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/kerala/kerala-information-commissioner-suspended/article4090203.ece
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Governor H. R. Bhardwaj on Monday suspended Kerala State Information
>>> Commissioner K. Natarajan.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > The suspension is pending formal enquiry by a Judge of the Supreme
>>> > Court
>>> > into the allegation that Mr Natarajan had tried to interfere with the
>>> > vigilance investigation into gifting of government land by Opposition
>>> > Leader V. S. Achuthanandan to his relative when Mr. Achuthandnan was
>>> > Chief Minister.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > An enquiry ordered by the State government had found that Mr.
>>> > Natarajan
>>> > had tried to influence Deputy Superintendent of Police V. G. Kunhan
>>> > who
>>> > was investigating the case against Mr. Achuthanandan.Additional
>>> > Director
>>> > General of Police (Vigilance) R. Sreelekha, who conducted the enquiry,
>>> > reported that the State Information Commissioner had misused his
>>> > office
>>> > and recommended his suspension. He had repeatedly telephoned Mr.
>>> > Kunhan
>>> > and his request to Mr. Kunhan to save Mr. Achuthanandan was recorded
>>> > by
>>> > the latter.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > (Mr. Achuthanandan is accused of having allotted 2.33 acres in
>>> > Kasaragod
>>> > district to his relative and ex-service man T. K. Soman in an
>>> > irregular
>>> > manner. The Commissioner allegedly sought manipulation of findings of
>>> > the enquiry to favour Mr. Achuthanandan.)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > The Governor will now refer the matter to the Supreme Court seeking a
>>> > statutory enquiry by a Supreme Court judge against the suspended
>>> > Commissioner. If misconduct is proved in the enquiry, the Governor can
>>> > remove Mr. Natarajan from his office.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Mr. Natarajan was a Deputy Inspector General of Police before the
>>> > Achuthanandan government appointed him as State Information
>>> > Commissioner. His appointment had attracted criticism on the grounds
>>> > that he was not qualified for appointment as Information Commissioner.
>>> > (The Right to Information Act specifies that Information Commissioners
>>> > shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and
>>> > experience in law, science and technology, social service, management,
>>> > journalism, mass media or administration and governance.)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Meanwhile, the Human Right Defence Forum and Kerala RTI Federation
>>> > have
>>> > urged the President Pranab Mukherjee that Mr. Natarajan be stripped of
>>> > the President's Police Medal which was awarded to him when he was
>>> > serving as a police officer. Forum President P. K. Ibrahim and
>>> > Federation General Secretary D.B. Binu said that Mr. Natarajan had
>>> > "let
>>> > down the honour of the medal" by meddling with the Rule of Law.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > This article has been corrected for a factual error
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>