Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday set aside the state information commission's order directing the court administration to provide information about the transfer, action on complaints and reason for termination of certain judicial officers. The court of Justice Biren Vaishnav set aside the order of the Gujarat Information Commission (GIC) dated June 23, 2014, directing the public information officer of the high court to provide the information to the applicant within 15 days from the receipt of the order.
The court termed the order as illegal and violative of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which stipulates that personal information which has no relationship with any public activity or interest need not be disclosed. Judicial officer Paresh Godigajbar had sought information regarding the details of the high court's decisions regarding the transfer, actions against certain judicial officers and reason for termination of other judicial officers in his application dated February 17, 2014.
He moved first appellate after there was considerable delay in receiving the information. Thereafter, the high court PIO provided some information and withheld others with reasons that they pertained to the third party and in view of the embargo imposed in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act stipulates that personal information, which has no relationship with any public activity or interest, need not be disclosed.
It states that any information, which causes an unwarranted invasion of privacy of an individual, should not be disclosed in the larger public interest. Lawyer Hemang Shah, representing the high court, submitted that the information sought by Godigajbar and withheld by the court was causing unwarranted invasion of privacy of individuals.
Opposing this, the petitioner's lawyer MM Saiyed said not supplying information in the context of other judicial officers by relying on section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act was misconceived. The information denied to Godigajbar were certified copies of representations for transfer submitted by two judicial officers of the same batch as the petitioner and decision of the high court on the representations.
Among other information denied to him were details of hometown, place of practice, personal data form, relation with any judicial officer/advocate, etc. of 25 judicial officers and information regarding termination of a former principal civil judge and actions against a senior civil judge over complaint by the bar association. (PTI)
