In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has quashed the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) order directing Ryan International School to disclose personal information related to its employees. The court, presided over by Justice Sanjeev Narula, ruled that such information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, as it qualifies as “personal information” without any larger public interest warranting its release.
Background of the Case:
The case arose from an RTI application filed by Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma (Respondent No. 3) on April 19, 2017, seeking information about the service details, financial benefits, and communication records of employees at Ryan International School, Mayur Vihar Phase-3 branch. The Directorate of Education (DoE), through its Public Information Officer (PIO), initially responded that the information would be provided once received from the school. Dissatisfied, Mr. Sharma filed appeals, leading to the CIC’s directive on May 14, 2019, which ordered the school to provide the information.
Ryan International School challenged this order, arguing that it is a private unaided institution and does not fall under the ambit of the RTI Act as a public authority. Furthermore, the school contended that the disclosure of such information would amount to an invasion of the privacy of its employees.
Legal Issues Involved:
1. Scope of RTI Act for Private Unaided Schools: The primary question was whether Ryan International School, as a private unaided institution, could be compelled to disclose employee-related information under the RTI Act.
2. Applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act: This provision exempts personal information from disclosure unless a larger public interest justifies it. The court examined whether the information sought by Mr. Sharma qualified as personal information and if any public interest was involved.
3. Regulatory Role of Directorate of Education: The court also considered the extent of the Directorate of Education’s role in supervising and regulating private schools under the Delhi School Education Act and Rules (DSEAR), 1973.
Court’s Observations and Judgment:
The Delhi High Court, in its judgment dated October 4, 2024, ruled in favor of Ryan International School. The court made the following critical observations:
– Personal Information Exemption: The court, referencing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2013), held that employee-related information, including service records, financial details, and communication regarding promotions or disciplinary actions, constitutes personal information. The disclosure of such details does not serve any public interest and would lead to an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
“The performance of an employee/officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer… disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy,” the court cited from the Supreme Court’s ruling.
– Absence of Public Interest: The court noted that no evidence was presented to show that disclosing the information sought by Mr. Sharma would serve a larger public interest. Thus, the protection under Section 8(1)(j) remained valid.
– DoE’s Regulatory Powers: While the CIC had directed the Directorate of Education to exercise its supervisory role under the DSEAR Act to obtain the information, the court clarified that this did not override the employees’ right to privacy. The information held by the school pertained to personal details that did not fall under the purview of public disclosure merely due to the DoE’s regulatory capacity.
Based on these findings, the court allowed the writ petition filed by Ryan International School and set aside the CIC’s order. The case number for this judgment is W.P.(C) 8984/2019.
Representation:
– Petitioner (Ryan International School): Represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Romy Chacko, assisted by Mr. Ashwin Romy, Mr. Sachin Singh Dalal, Mr. Akshat Singh, and Mr. Joe Sebastian.
– Respondents: Mr. R.K. Malik appeared for Respondent No. 2 (Directorate of Education). Respondent No. 3, Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma, did not appear during the final hearing.
