Canara Bank vs. C.S. Shyam, SC

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.22 OF 2009
Canara Bank Rep. by

its Deputy Gen. Manager ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
C.S. Shyam & Anr. …Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment
and order dated 20.09.2007 passed by the High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No.
2100 of 2007 whereby the High Court disposed of
the writ appeal filed by the appellant herein and
upheld the judgment passed by the Single Judge
Signature Not Verified dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2017.08.31
16:58:31 IST
Reason:
1
herein challenging the order of the Central
Information Commission holding that the appellant
must provide the information sought by respondent
No.1 herein under the Right to Information Act,
2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
2) Few relevant facts need mention to appreciate
the controversy involved in appeal.
3) The appellant herein is a nationalized Bank. It
has a branch in District Malappuram in the State of
Kerala. Respondent No. 1, at the relevant time, was
working in the said Branch as a clerical staff.
4) On 01.08.2006, respondent No.1 submitted an
application to the Public Information Officer of the
appellant-Bank under Section 6 of the Act and
sought information regarding transfer and posting
of the entire clerical staff from 01.01.2002 to
31.07.2006 in all the branches of the
appellant-Bank.
2
5) The information was sought on 15 parameters
with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical
staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual
employees. This information was in relation to the
personal details of individual employee such as the
date of his/her joining, designation, details of
promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the
Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who
issued the transfer orders etc. etc.
6) On 29.08.2006, the Public Information Officer
of the Bank expressed his inability to furnish the
details sought by respondent No. 1 as, in his view,
firstly, the information sought was protected from
being disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act and
secondly, it had no nexus with any public interest
or activity.
7) Respondent No.1, felt aggrieved, filed appeal
before the Chief Public Information Officer. By
3
order dated 30.09.2006, the Chief Public
Information Officer agreeing with the view taken by
the Public Information Officer dismissed the appeal
and affirmed the order of the Public Information
Officer.
8) Felt aggrieved, respondent No.1 carried the
matter in further appeal before the Central
Information Commission. By order dated
26.02.2007, the appeal was allowed and accordingly
directions were issued to the Bank to furnish the
information sought by respondent No.1 in his
application.
9) Against the said order, the appellant-Bank
filed writ petition before the High Court. The Single
Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition
filed by the appellant-Bank. Challenging the said
order, the appellant-Bank filed writ appeal before
the High Court.
4
10) By impugned order, the Division Bench of the
High Court dismissed the appellant's writ appeal
and affirmed the order of the Central Information
Commission, which has given rise to filing of this
appeal.
11) Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and on perusal of the record of the case,
we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the
impugned order and dismiss the application
submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of
the Act.
12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved
herein remains no more res integra and stands
settled by two decisions of this Court in Girish
Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information
Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K.
Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794,
5
it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal
issue urged in this appeal.
13) In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case
(supra), the petitioner therein (Girish) had sought
some personal information of one employee working
in Sub Regional Office (provident fund) Akola. All
the authorities, exercising their respective powers
under the Act, declined the prayer for furnishing the
information sought by the petitioner. The High
Court in writ petition filed by the petitioner upheld
the orders. Aggrieved by all the order, he filed
special leave to appeal in this Court. Their
Lordships dismissed the appeal and upholding the
orders passed by the High Court held as under:-
“12. We are in agreement with the CIC and

the courts below that the details called for by
the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued
to the third respondent, show-cause notices
and orders of censure/punishment, etc. are
qualified to be personal information as
defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI
Act. The performance of an employee/officer
in an organisation is primarily a matter
6
between the employee and the employer and
normally those aspects are governed by the
service rules which fall under the expression
“personal information”, the disclosure of
which has no relationship to any public
activity or public interest. On the other hand,
the disclosure of which would cause
unwarranted invasion of privacy of that
individual. Of course, in a given case, if the
Central Public Information Officer or the
State Public Information Officer or the
appellate authority is satisfied that the larger
public interest justifies the disclosure of such
information, appropriate orders could be
passed but the petitioner cannot claim those
details as a matter of right.
13. The details disclosed by a person in his

income tax returns are “personal
information” which stand exempted from
disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of
the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public
interest and the Central Public Information
Officer or the State Public Information
Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied
that the larger public interest justifies the
disclosure of such information.”
14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned
principle of law applies to the facts of this case on
all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the
information sought by respondent No.1 of individual
employees working in the Bank was personal in
nature; secondly, it was exempted from being
7
disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly,
neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public
interest much less larger public interest involved in
seeking such information of the individual employee
and nor any finding was recorded by the Central
Information Commission and the High Court as to
the involvement of any larger public interest in
supplying such information to respondent No.1.
15) It is for these reasons, we are of the considered
view that the application made by respondent No.1
under Section 6 of the Act was wholly misconceived
and was, therefore, rightly rejected by the Public
Information Officer and Chief Public Information
Officer whereas wrongly allowed by the Central
Information Commission and the High Court.
16) In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal,
set aside the order of the High Court and Central
Information Commission and restore the orders
8
passed by the Public Information Officer and the
Chief Public Information Officer. As a result, the
application submitted by respondent No.1 to the
appellant-Bank dated 01.08.2006 (Annexure-P-1)
stands rejected.
………...................................J.
[R.K. AGRAWAL]
…...……..................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
New Delhi;
August 31, 2017

Canara Bank vs. C.S. Shyam, SC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Canara Bank vs. C.S. Shyam, SC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Canara Bank vs. C.S. Shyam, SC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.22 OF 2009

Canara Bank Rep. by

C.S. Shyam & Anr. …Respondent(s)

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment

and order dated 20.09.2007 passed by the High

Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No.

2100 of 2007 whereby the High Court disposed of

the writ appeal filed by the appellant herein and

upheld the judgment passed by the Single Judge

Information Commission holding that the appellant

must provide the information sought by respondent

No.1 herein under the Right to Information Act,

2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2) Few relevant facts need mention to appreciate

the controversy involved in appeal.

3) The appellant herein is a nationalized Bank. It

has a branch in District Malappuram in the State of

Kerala. Respondent No. 1, at the relevant time, was

working in the said Branch as a clerical staff.

4) On 01.08.2006, respondent No.1 submitted an

application to the Public Information Officer of the

appellant-Bank under Section 6 of the Act and

sought information regarding transfer and posting

of the entire clerical staff from 01.01.2002 to

31.07.2006 in all the branches of the

with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical

staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual

employees. This information was in relation to the

personal details of individual employee such as the

date of his/her joining, designation, details of

promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the

Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who

issued the transfer orders etc. etc.

6) On 29.08.2006, the Public Information Officer

of the Bank expressed his inability to furnish the

details sought by respondent No. 1 as, in his view,

firstly, the information sought was protected from

being disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act and

secondly, it had no nexus with any public interest

7) Respondent No.1, felt aggrieved, filed appeal

before the Chief Public Information Officer. By

Information Officer agreeing with the view taken by

the Public Information Officer dismissed the appeal

and affirmed the order of the Public Information

8) Felt aggrieved, respondent No.1 carried the

matter in further appeal before the Central

Information Commission. By order dated

26.02.2007, the appeal was allowed and accordingly

directions were issued to the Bank to furnish the

information sought by respondent No.1 in his

9) Against the said order, the appellant-Bank

filed writ petition before the High Court. The Single

Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition

filed by the appellant-Bank. Challenging the said

order, the appellant-Bank filed writ appeal before