R.ANBAZHAGAN DEPUTY MANAGER (MECHANICAL) TAMILNADU NEWSPRINT AND PAPERS LTD (TNPL) KAGITHAPURAM PUGALUR KARUR DISTRICT v. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 17.04.2008C O R A MThe Honourable Mrs. Justice PRABHA SRIDEVANW.P.No.47897 of 20061 R.ANBAZHAGAN DEPUTY MANAGER(MECHANICAL) TAMILNADU NEWSPRINT AND PAPERS LTD(TNPL) KAGITHAPURAM PUGALUR KARUR DISTRICT[PETITIONER] Vs1 THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION 89 DR ALAGAPPA ROAD KRISHNA VILAS PURASAWAKKAM CHENNAI 842 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMILNADU NEWSPRINT AND PAPERS LTD(TNPL) ANNA SALAI GUINDY CHENNAI 323 THE CHIEF MANAGER TAMILNADU NEWSPRINT AND PAPERS LTD (TNPL) KAGITHAPURAM PUGALUR KARUR DISTRICT 639 1364 MRS.M.VIJAYA W/O N.RAJENDRAN 53/1 MAIN ROAD POTHANUR NAMAKKAL DISTRICT[RESPONDENTS]Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the1st respondent made in Appeal case No.5795/tnic/06 dated 13.11.2006in so far as it directs the respondents 2 and 3 to provide specificinformation to all the queries immediately regarding the salaryparticulars of the petitioner and quash the same.For petitioner :: Mr. S. Silambanan, Senior Counsel For respondents:: No appearance for R1 Mr. Shivakumar for RR2 &3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDERThe petitioner was working as the Deputy Manager in Tamil NaduNewsprint and Papers Limited(TNPL) at the time of filing of the writpetition. It is informed that subsequently he has resigned. Thefourth respondent made an application to the Public InformationOfficer of TNPL seeking information under the Right to InformationAct ("the Act" in short) regarding the details of the petitioner'sannual gross income. The fourth respondent had not given any reasonsfor this request. The Chief Manager, Human Resources of TNPL by hisletter dated 19-10-2006 declined to give the information on theground that it is of a personal nature and that it would not berevealed to a third person without the authorisation of the concernedemployee. The letter also informed the fourth respondent that TNPLwas not bound by the provisions of the Act. Aggrieved by this, thefourth respondent filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Act. Thefirst respondent-Commission passed the impugned order on 13-11-2006holding that "All Government Public Sector Undertakings come underthe purview of the Act as per Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the Right toInformation Act, 2005. Specific information must be given to all thequeries immediately and reported to the Commission." The petitioneris aggrieved that without any discussion or consideration of the factthat this information is personal in nature, the impugned order hasbeen passed. Therefore, this writ petition has been filed to quashthe said order insofar as it directs the respondents 2 and 3 toprovide the information to all the queries raised by the fourthrespondent. 2.The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Silambanan appearing forthe writ petitioner submitted that as per Section 8 of the Act,information which relates to personal information the disclosure ofwhich has no relationship to any public activity or interest, orwhich would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of a personshall not be given, unless the authority is satisfied that largerpublic interest justifies the disclosure of such information.According to the learned Senior counsel, the impugned order does notindicate that the first respondent was satisfied that larger publicinterest prevailed over the provisions of Section 8 of the Act whichprotected disclosure of personal information. The learned SeniorCounsel also submitted that TNPL is not a public authority as definedby Section 2(h) of the Act. 3.Counter has been filed by the respondents 2 and 3. Thelearned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 would submit that theGovernment of Tamil Nadu holds only 35.10%of the total equity capitaland therefore, the TNPL is not a "public authority" and that thedetails relating to the gross annual income are kept confidential andthat the motive for the fourth respondent to seek this information isnot clear and that there is no merit in the request made by thefourth respondent. The learned counsel however, would submit thatthe TNPL would abide by the directions of this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The fourth respondent has filed a vacate stay petition andas per the affidavit filed in support thereof, it is seen thatearlier the fourth respondent had challenged the selection of thepetitioner's wife for allotment of LPG distributorship. Theallotment of this distributorship gave rise to W.P.No.18544 of 2006which was dismissed by this Court on merits. Subsequently, thefourth respondent made an application to the third respondent to givedetails regarding the annual gross income of the petitioner.According to the fourth respondent this would prove that thepetitioner's wife did not satisfy the eligibility criteria forallotment of distributor and that the allotment is illegal. Thelearned counsel submitted that Section 8 of the Act relates to otherinformation which are personal in nature, the disclosure of whichwould amount to invasion into the privacy, but details regarding theincome of the petitioner received from a public authority cannot besaid to be information of a personal nature. The learned counselsubmitted that as per Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, TNPL should havepublished within 120 days from the enactment of this Act, the detailsregarding the emoluments of its employees. The learned counsel alsosubmitted that the stand of respondents 2 and 3 that the TNPL is nota public authority cannot be accepted. The Memorandum and Articles of Association of TNPL, shows thatthe subscribers to the Memorandum of Association are nine includingHis Excellency the Governor and eight other persons who barring onefrom Government service. The following are the first Directors ofthe Company:1.Thiru C.V.R. Panikar, I.A.S.Vigilance CommissionerGovernment of Tamil NaduMadras – 600 0092.Thiru. K. Diraviam, I.A.S.,Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Food Dept.,Government of Tamil naduMadras – 600 0093.Thiru. K. Venkatesan, I.A.S.,Secretary to Government Finance DepartmentGovernment of Tamil NaduMadras – 600 0094.Thiru.S. ViswanathanManaging DirectorSeshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd.,Madras – 600 034 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.Thiru. K.P. Geethakrishnan, I.A.S.,Commissioner and Secretary to GovernmentIndustries DepartmentGovernment of Tamil NaduMadras – 600 009"As per Article 97, the part-time Chairman is appointed by the StateGovernment with the consent of Corporations mentioned in Article 99(b). These Corporations are all public sector undertakings. Article99 which relates to Additional Directors, entitles the StateGovernment so long as they hold the share capital to appoint fromtime to time as a Director either whole time or part time persons andalso remove from such office any person or persons so appointed.These nominated directors cannot be removed otherwise. The fees ofthe nominee directors accrue to the State Government and will be paidby the Company directly to the State Government. The learned counselfor the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that even as on date theCompany is not holding the majority of the shares and would not comeunder the definition of public authority. The definition of publicauthority reads as follows:""public authority" means any authority or body orinstitution of self-government established or constituted --(a) by or under the Constitution;(b) by any other law made by Parliament;(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;(d) by notification issued or order made by theappropriate Government, and includes any --(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed,directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriateGovernment;"So it is not necessary that the Government should be the majorityshare-holder of the public authority. The body or institution shouldbe substantially financed by the Government and there should becontrol by the Government. The definition is inclusive.5.In this case the Memorandum of Association indicates thecontrol that the State has over TNPL and therefore, TNPL woulddefinitely come under the definition of 'public authority' as per theAct. In Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. v. Mysore Paper Mills Officers'Assn.,((2002) 2 SCC 167) the Supreme Court dealt with the status ofthe appellant Company and concluded that it was an instrumentalityand agency of the State Government. This decision has been referredto as representing "the continuity of thought commencing from thedecision in Rajasthan Electricity Board in 1967 upto the presenttime." (vide 2002 (5) SCC 111(Pradeep Kumar Biswas V. Indian https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Institute of Chemical Biology & Others). Many of the salientfeatures of the appellant company noted in Mysore Paper Mills caseare found in TNPL too. Therefore, it is clear that TNPL is a "publicauthority" as defined in the Act. 6.The next objection is with relation to the nature ofinformation sought for. Section 4 of the Act deals with theobligation of the public authority to do the following:"(a) maintain all its records duly catalogued andindexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the rightto information under this Act and ensure that all recordsthat are appropriate to be computerised are, within areasonable time and subject to availability of resources,computerised and connected through a network all over thecountry on different systems so that access to such recordsis facilitated. ..(b) publish within one hundred and twenty days fromthe enactment of this Act,-- (i) ..(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of itsofficers and employees, including the system of compensationas provided in its regulations;(ix)...(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars ofthe Public Information Officers;"Sub-section (2) provides that the public authority should endeavourconstantly to provide this information suo motu at regular intervalsthrough various means of communications including the internet.Subsection (3) provides that every information should be disseminatedwidely and in such form and manner which is easily accessible to thepublic. Subsection (4) provides dissemination of information bytaking into consideration the local language and cost effectivemethod of communication. 7.Section 8 of the Act reads as follows:"Exemption from disclosure of information.- (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shallbe no obligation to give any citizen,-- (a) ...(j) information which relates to personal informationthe disclosure of which has no relationship to any publicactivity or interest, or which would cause unwarrantedinvasion of the privacy of the individual unless theCentral Public Information Officer or the State PublicInformation Officer or the appellate authority, as the casemay be, is satisfied that the larger public interest https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ justifies the disclosure of such information:Provided that the information which cannot be deniedto the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not bedenied to any person."It is clear therefore, that TNPL was under a statutory obligation tomake available, interalia on the internet, the information relatingto the monthly remuneration received by each of the officers andemployees including the system of compensation as provided in itsRegulations. It is obvious that TNPL has not done so. In fact, itis not necessary for any person to seek this information if TNPL haddischarged its obligation under Section 4. The information would havebeen available on the internet to any person who is interested. 8.As regards the objection that it is a personal informationwhich has no relationship to any public activity or interest or whichwould cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of a person, thisdeserves to be rejected. The petitioner receives his salary from apublic sector undertaking and as stated in the counter filed by therespondents 2 and 3 it is subject to the provisions of Income Tax.Therefore, there is nothing secret about the income received by him.Further it also cannot be stated that the disclosure has norelationship to any public activity or interest. The case of thefourth respondent is, if this information is disclosed it would showthat the petitioner's wife would not satisfy one of the criteriasubject to which the LPG distributorship is allotted. This allotmentof distributorship cannot be arbitrary and contrary to rules and ifthere is some factor which would vitiate the selection process, thenit would definitely be a matter of public interest. In any event, theincome received by an individual from a public sector undertakingcannot be private information. Information relating for example asto whether a particular person is tested HIV positive might be amatter which intrudes into the privacy of the individual, but not themonthly income which a person is receiving from a public sectorundertaking which is subject to income tax. 9.The other objection raised is that, as on date the writpetitioner has resigned from TNPL and therefore, the information thatis now sought for would not be the information relating to anemployee, but an erstwhile employee. This objection cannot beentertained because the petitioner was an employee of TNPL when hefiled the writ petition. He obtained stay. During the currency ofstay, pending the writ petition, he resigned and he cannot now takeadvantage of that fact. The matter will have to be dealt withaccording to the status of the petitioner on the date of applicationand on the date of the impugned order. The decision to allot thedistributorship will be tested according to the circumstances thatprevailed on the date of decision.10.One other ground raised by the respondents 2 and 3 towithhold information is that the fourth respondent has not givenreasons for seeking the information. But as per Section 6(2), the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ applicant need not give reasons. Section 6(2) reads thus:"(2) An applicant making request for information shallnot be required to give any reason for requesting theinformation or any other personal details except those thatmay be necessary for contacting him."11.The scope of Right to Information vis-a-vis the right toprivacy has been discussed in 2006 (5) CTC 829 (Doraisamy, K.J. Vs.The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Erode Branch).The relevant paragraphs are extracted herein:"14. R. Rajagopal V. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 (6) SCC632 is a turning point in the history of the development ofthe law of privacy in India...."9. The right to privacy as an independent anddistinctive concept originated in the field of Tort law,under which a new cause of action for damages resulting fromunlawful invasion of privacy was recognised. This right hastwo aspects which are but two faces of the same coin – (1)the general law of privacy which affords a tort action fordamages resulting from an unlawful governmental invasion.The first aspect of this right must be said to have beenviolated where, for example, a person's name or likeness isused, without his consent, for advertising – or non-advertising – purposes or for that matter, his life story iswritten – whether laudatory or otherwise – and publishedwithout his consent as explained hereafter. In recenttimes, however, this right has acquired a constitutionalstatus. We shall proceed to explain how? Right to privacy isnot enumerated as a fundamental right in our Constitutionbut has been inferred from Article 21."15. After an elaborate discussion of the American,Australian and English Case Law, the Supreme Courtsummarised the principles flowing from the discussion, inparagraph 26 as follows:"26.We may now summarise the broad principles flowingfrom the above discussion:..(2) The rule aforesaid is subject to the exception,that any publication concerning the aforesaid aspectsbecomes unobjectionable if such publication is based uponpublic records including Court records. This is for thereason that once a matter becomes a matter of public record,the right to privacy no longer subsists and it becomes alegitimate subject for comment by press and media amongothers. We are, however, of the opinion that in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ interests of decency [Article 19(2)] an exception must becarved out to this rule, viz., a female who is the victim ofa sexual assault, kidnap, abduction or a like offence shouldnot further be subjected to the indignity of her name andthe incident being publicised in press/media...31.Lastly, with the advent of the Right toInformation Act, 2005, the Bank has become obliged todisclose information to the public. Section 3 of the saidAct entitles all citizens to a right to information.Section 4(2) of the said Act provides as follows:"(2) It shall be a constant endeavour of every publicauthority to take steps in accordance with the requirementsof clause (b) of sub-section (1) to provide as muchinformation suo moto to the public at regular intervalsthrough various means of communications, including internet,so that the public have minimum resort to the use of thisAct to obtain information."Public Authority is defined under Section 2(h) of the Act toinclude " any body owned, controlled or substantiallyfinanced." Therefore, the respondent Bank is a PublicAuthority within the meaning of the Act and they owe a dutyto disseminate information even suo moto.Certain exemptions are listed out under Section 8 of theRight to Information Act, 2005, two of which are ofsignificance and they read as follows:....Thus the aforesaid decision leaves no room for any doubt that the'Right to Privacy' fades out in front of the 'Right to Information'and 'larger public interest'.12. In Surupsingh Vs. State of Maharashtra (2007 (4) Mh.L.J.)573), the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in a case wherethe hospital records of a convict was sought, held thus:"15. The question then is what is the true import ofthe proviso, which sets out that the information whichcannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature shallnot be denied to any person. Are the medical recordsmaintained of a patient in a public hospital covered by theprovisions of the Act. Can this information be withheld toeither Parliament or State Legislature as the case may be onthe ground that such information is confidential. To ourmind generally such information normally cannot be denied toParliament or the State Legislature unless the person whoopposes the release of the information makes out a case that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ such information is not available to Parliament or the StateLegislation under the Act. By its very constitution and theplenary powers which the Legislature enjoys, suchinformation cannot be denied to Parliament or StateLegislature by any public authority. As the preamble notes,the Act is to provide for setting out a practical regime ofright to information for citizens, to secure access toinformation under the control of public authorities as alsoto promote transparency and accountability in the working ofevery public authority. These objects of the legislatureare to make our society more open and public authoritiesmore accountable. Normally, therefore, all such informationmust be made readily available to a citizen subject to rightof privacy and that information having no relationship toany public authority or entity. In the instant case therespondent No.2 while granting the application of respondentNo.5, has given as reasons larger public interest and asthat the information could not be withheld from Parliamentor State Legislature. The learned Associate AdvocateGeneral informed us that the State Assembly has not framedany Rules in the matter of receiving information.The test always in such matter is between private rights of acitizen and the right of third person to be informed. The thirdperson need not give any reason for his information. Consideringthat, we must hold that the object of the Act, leans in favour ofmaking available the records in the custody or control of the publicauthorities. " 13.One of the objectives to this right to information iseradication of ineffective governance and corrupt governance.Corruption is now recognised as violation of human rights. Goodtransparency practices are essential for good governance and itincludes maximum disclosure; obligation to publish; promotion of opengovernment; limited scope of exceptions; minimum costs; processesthat facilitate access; open meetings; precedence of disclosure; andprotection of whistle-blowers. The civil society must be unrelentingin its efforts to ensure that the government at all levels reaches areasonable standard in affording public information to the citizens.Sometimes even harmless information is not made available. When whatis asked for is just ordinary data, data that any interested tax-paying citizen has a right to know - a human right, even where nonational secrets that threaten public interest are asked for - it isnot furnished. This access to information is more vitally importantin developing countries. It is very necessary that the ordinaryperson is enabled to participate in the processes that affect dailylife and he has empowered with the information to play an effectiverole in policy-making and legislative decision-making. To promotebroader political participation, there should be accountability andtransparency of government, to prevent the criminalisation of policy,there should be free flow of information. These are the reasons why https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Act came into force. The Government should have the will to makethe shift from being niggardly in providing access to information.Transparency is essential for a healthy democracy and robusteconomy. The first respondent was right in directing that theinformation should be given14.In these circumstances, I do not think the impugned orderdeserves to be quashed. The respondents 2 and 3 shall give theinformation as they are required to under the Act within a period offifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thewrit petition is dismissed. However there will be no order as tocosts. M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2006 are also dismissed.Sd/-Assistant Registrar/True Copy/Sub Assistant RegistrarglpTo1 THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION 89 DR ALAGAPPA ROAD KRISHNA VILAS PURASAWAKKAM CHENNAI 842 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMILNADU NEWSPRINT AND PAPERS LTD(TNPL) ANNA SALAI GUINDY CHENNAI 323 THE CHIEF MANAGER TAMILNADU NEWSPRINT AND PAPERS LTD (TNPL) KAGITHAPURAM PUGALUR KARUR DISTRICT 639 136+ 1 CC to Mr.S.Silambanan, Advocate, S.R.No.21712+ 1 CC to Mr.G.M.Mani Associates, S.R.No.21990+ 1 CC to Mr.Shivakumar, Advocate, S.R.No.22465W.P. No.47897 of 2006SKD (CO)SRA (23/04/2008)