Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]Code Context
trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);
}
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.' $stackFrame = (int) 1 $trace = [ (int) 0 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php', 'line' => (int) 2421, 'function' => 'deprecationWarning', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.' ] ], (int) 1 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php', 'line' => (int) 73, 'function' => 'offsetGet', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'catslug' ] ], (int) 2 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php', 'line' => (int) 610, 'function' => 'printArticle', 'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController', 'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ], (int) 3 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php', 'line' => (int) 120, 'function' => 'invokeAction', 'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller', 'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ], (int) 4 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php', 'line' => (int) 94, 'function' => '_invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {} ] ], (int) 5 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php', 'line' => (int) 235, 'function' => 'dispatch', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 6 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication', 'object' => object(App\Application) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 7 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 162, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 8 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 9 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 88, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 10 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 11 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 96, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 12 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 13 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 51, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 14 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php', 'line' => (int) 98, 'function' => 'run', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 15 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php', 'line' => (int) 39, 'function' => 'run', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ] ] $frame = [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php', 'line' => (int) 73, 'function' => 'offsetGet', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) { trustProxy => false [protected] params => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] cookies => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] _environment => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/it-returns-performance-report-out-of-rti-ambit-sc-17411/print' [protected] base => '' [protected] webroot => '/' [protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/it-returns-performance-report-out-of-rti-ambit-sc-17411/print' [protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] _input => null [protected] _detectors => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] _detectorCache => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {} [protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {} [protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {} [protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] emulatedAttributes => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] protocol => null [protected] requestTarget => null [private] deprecatedProperties => [ [maximum depth reached] ] }, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'catslug' ] ]deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311 Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421 App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73 Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51 Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]Code Context
trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);
}
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.' $stackFrame = (int) 1 $trace = [ (int) 0 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php', 'line' => (int) 2421, 'function' => 'deprecationWarning', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.' ] ], (int) 1 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php', 'line' => (int) 74, 'function' => 'offsetGet', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'artileslug' ] ], (int) 2 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php', 'line' => (int) 610, 'function' => 'printArticle', 'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController', 'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ], (int) 3 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php', 'line' => (int) 120, 'function' => 'invokeAction', 'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller', 'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ], (int) 4 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php', 'line' => (int) 94, 'function' => '_invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {} ] ], (int) 5 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php', 'line' => (int) 235, 'function' => 'dispatch', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 6 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication', 'object' => object(App\Application) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 7 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 162, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 8 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 9 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 88, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 10 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 11 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 96, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 12 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 13 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 51, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 14 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php', 'line' => (int) 98, 'function' => 'run', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 15 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php', 'line' => (int) 39, 'function' => 'run', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ] ] $frame = [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php', 'line' => (int) 74, 'function' => 'offsetGet', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) { trustProxy => false [protected] params => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] cookies => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] _environment => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/it-returns-performance-report-out-of-rti-ambit-sc-17411/print' [protected] base => '' [protected] webroot => '/' [protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/it-returns-performance-report-out-of-rti-ambit-sc-17411/print' [protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] _input => null [protected] _detectors => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] _detectorCache => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {} [protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {} [protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {} [protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] emulatedAttributes => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] protocol => null [protected] requestTarget => null [private] deprecatedProperties => [ [maximum depth reached] ] }, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'artileslug' ] ]deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311 Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421 App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74 Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51 Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]Code Contextif (Configure::read('debug')) {
trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);
} else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) { 'status' => (int) 200, 'contentType' => 'text/html', 'headers' => [ 'Content-Type' => [ [maximum depth reached] ] ], 'file' => null, 'fileRange' => [], 'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {}, 'cacheDirectives' => [], 'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68000f156239f-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68000f156239f-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr68000f156239f-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68000f156239f-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68000f156239f-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68000f156239f-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68000f156239f-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr68000f156239f-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">> </span></span></code> <span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000"> <link rel="canonical" href="<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">); </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>/<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>.html"/> </span></code></span> <code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"> </span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type" </span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html; charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/> </span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr68000f156239f-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp' $dataForView = [ 'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 17283, 'title' => 'IT Returns, Performance Report Out of RTI Ambit: SC', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div style="text-align: justify"> -Outlook </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are &quot;personal information&quot; which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest is involved. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The apex court added that under the transparency law, information pertaining to the performance of an employee or officer cannot be made public as it is a matter between the employee and the employer which falls under the expression of &quot;personal information&quot; and cannot be claimed as a right by others. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are &quot;personal information&quot; which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless a larger public interest is involved and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information,&quot; a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra said. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;The performance of an employee or officer in an organisation is primarily a matter 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,&quot; it further said. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The court said &quot;the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of 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,&quot; it said.&nbsp; </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The apex court gave the verdict while dismissing a plea against denial of information regarding a government servant's service matters and also the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The information seeker had approached the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour) on August 27, 2008 seeking various details relating to a person employed as an Enforcement Officer in the Sub-Regional Office, Akola. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> He had also sought the details of the gifts accepted by the official, his family members and friends and relatives on his son's marriage. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> Holding that the information sought for is contained in the income tax returns of the official, the apex court said the Central Information Commission and the Bombay High Court had dealt with them and there was no question of disagreement with the two fora. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition,&quot; the bench said. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner ie, the 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,&quot; the bench said. </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'Outlook, 4 October, 2012, http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=777290', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'it-returns-performance-report-out-of-rti-ambit-sc-17411', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 17411, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], '[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[repository]' => 'Articles' }, 'articleid' => (int) 17283, 'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | IT Returns, Performance Report Out of RTI Ambit: SC', 'metaKeywords' => 'Right to Information,rti', 'metaDesc' => ' -Outlook The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are &quot;personal information&quot; which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest...', 'disp' => '<div style="text-align: justify">-Outlook</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are &quot;personal information&quot; which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest is involved.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The apex court added that under the transparency law, information pertaining to the performance of an employee or officer cannot be made public as it is a matter between the employee and the employer which falls under the expression of &quot;personal information&quot; and cannot be claimed as a right by others.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are &quot;personal information&quot; which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless a larger public interest is involved and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information,&quot; a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;The performance of an employee or officer in an organisation is primarily a matter 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,&quot; it further said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The court said &quot;the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of 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,&quot; it said.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The apex court gave the verdict while dismissing a plea against denial of information regarding a government servant's service matters and also the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The information seeker had approached the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour) on August 27, 2008 seeking various details relating to a person employed as an Enforcement Officer in the Sub-Regional Office, Akola.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">He had also sought the details of the gifts accepted by the official, his family members and friends and relatives on his son's marriage.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Holding that the information sought for is contained in the income tax returns of the official, the apex court said the Central Information Commission and the Bombay High Court had dealt with them and there was no question of disagreement with the two fora.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition,&quot; the bench said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner ie, the 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,&quot; the bench said.</div>', 'lang' => 'English', 'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/', 'site_title' => 'im4change', 'adminprix' => 'admin' ] $article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 17283, 'title' => 'IT Returns, Performance Report Out of RTI Ambit: SC', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div style="text-align: justify"> -Outlook </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are &quot;personal information&quot; which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest is involved. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The apex court added that under the transparency law, information pertaining to the performance of an employee or officer cannot be made public as it is a matter between the employee and the employer which falls under the expression of &quot;personal information&quot; and cannot be claimed as a right by others. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are &quot;personal information&quot; which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless a larger public interest is involved and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information,&quot; a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra said. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;The performance of an employee or officer in an organisation is primarily a matter 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,&quot; it further said. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The court said &quot;the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of 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,&quot; it said.&nbsp; </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The apex court gave the verdict while dismissing a plea against denial of information regarding a government servant's service matters and also the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The information seeker had approached the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour) on August 27, 2008 seeking various details relating to a person employed as an Enforcement Officer in the Sub-Regional Office, Akola. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> He had also sought the details of the gifts accepted by the official, his family members and friends and relatives on his son's marriage. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> Holding that the information sought for is contained in the income tax returns of the official, the apex court said the Central Information Commission and the Bombay High Court had dealt with them and there was no question of disagreement with the two fora. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition,&quot; the bench said. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner ie, the 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,&quot; the bench said. </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'Outlook, 4 October, 2012, http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=777290', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'it-returns-performance-report-out-of-rti-ambit-sc-17411', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 17411, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {} ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ '*' => true, 'id' => false ], '[dirty]' => [], '[original]' => [], '[virtual]' => [], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [], '[invalid]' => [], '[repository]' => 'Articles' } $articleid = (int) 17283 $metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | IT Returns, Performance Report Out of RTI Ambit: SC' $metaKeywords = 'Right to Information,rti' $metaDesc = ' -Outlook The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are &quot;personal information&quot; which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest...' $disp = '<div style="text-align: justify">-Outlook</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are &quot;personal information&quot; which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest is involved.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The apex court added that under the transparency law, information pertaining to the performance of an employee or officer cannot be made public as it is a matter between the employee and the employer which falls under the expression of &quot;personal information&quot; and cannot be claimed as a right by others.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are &quot;personal information&quot; which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless a larger public interest is involved and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information,&quot; a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;The performance of an employee or officer in an organisation is primarily a matter 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,&quot; it further said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The court said &quot;the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of 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,&quot; it said.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The apex court gave the verdict while dismissing a plea against denial of information regarding a government servant's service matters and also the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The information seeker had approached the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour) on August 27, 2008 seeking various details relating to a person employed as an Enforcement Officer in the Sub-Regional Office, Akola.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">He had also sought the details of the gifts accepted by the official, his family members and friends and relatives on his son's marriage.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Holding that the information sought for is contained in the income tax returns of the official, the apex court said the Central Information Commission and the Bombay High Court had dealt with them and there was no question of disagreement with the two fora.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition,&quot; the bench said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner ie, the 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,&quot; the bench said.</div>' $lang = 'English' $SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/' $site_title = 'im4change' $adminprix = 'admin'</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8 Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413 Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374 Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927 Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885 Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/it-returns-performance-report-out-of-rti-ambit-sc-17411.html"/> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/> <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"/> <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | IT Returns, Performance Report Out of RTI Ambit: SC | Im4change.org</title> <meta name="description" content=" -Outlook The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are "personal information" which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest..."/> <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script> <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript"> $(document).ready(function () { var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem var pic_real_width, pic_real_height; $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues .attr("src", $(img).attr("src")) .load(function () { pic_real_width = this.width; // Note: $(this).width() will not pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images. }); }); </script> <style type="text/css"> @media screen { div.divFooter { display: block; } } @media print { .printbutton { display: none !important; } } </style> </head> <body> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center"> <tr> <td class="top_bg"> <div class="divFooter"> <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0" alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/> </div> </td> </tr> <tr> <td id="topspace"> </td> </tr> <tr id="topspace"> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%"> <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal"> <strong>IT Returns, Performance Report Out of RTI Ambit: SC</strong></h1> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3"> <div style="text-align: justify">-Outlook</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are "personal information" which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest is involved.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The apex court added that under the transparency law, information pertaining to the performance of an employee or officer cannot be made public as it is a matter between the employee and the employer which falls under the expression of "personal information" and cannot be claimed as a right by others.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">"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 a larger public interest is involved and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information," a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">"The performance of an employee or officer in an organisation is primarily a matter 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," it further said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The court said "the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">"Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of 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," it said. </div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The apex court gave the verdict while dismissing a plea against denial of information regarding a government servant's service matters and also the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The information seeker had approached the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour) on August 27, 2008 seeking various details relating to a person employed as an Enforcement Officer in the Sub-Regional Office, Akola.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">He had also sought the details of the gifts accepted by the official, his family members and friends and relatives on his son's marriage.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Holding that the information sought for is contained in the income tax returns of the official, the apex court said the Central Information Commission and the Bombay High Court had dealt with them and there was no question of disagreement with the two fora.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">"We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition," the bench said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">"We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner ie, the 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 bench said.</div> </font> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> </table></body> </html>' } $maxBufferLength = (int) 8192 $file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php' $line = (int) 853 $message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48 Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141 [main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]Code Context$response->getStatusCode(),
($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')
));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) { 'status' => (int) 200, 'contentType' => 'text/html', 'headers' => [ 'Content-Type' => [ [maximum depth reached] ] ], 'file' => null, 'fileRange' => [], 'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {}, 'cacheDirectives' => [], 'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68000f156239f-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68000f156239f-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr68000f156239f-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68000f156239f-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68000f156239f-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68000f156239f-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68000f156239f-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr68000f156239f-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">> </span></span></code> <span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000"> <link rel="canonical" href="<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">); </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>/<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>.html"/> </span></code></span> <code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"> </span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type" </span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html; charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/> </span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr68000f156239f-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp' $dataForView = [ 'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 17283, 'title' => 'IT Returns, Performance Report Out of RTI Ambit: SC', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div style="text-align: justify"> -Outlook </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are &quot;personal information&quot; which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest is involved. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The apex court added that under the transparency law, information pertaining to the performance of an employee or officer cannot be made public as it is a matter between the employee and the employer which falls under the expression of &quot;personal information&quot; and cannot be claimed as a right by others. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are &quot;personal information&quot; which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless a larger public interest is involved and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information,&quot; a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra said. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;The performance of an employee or officer in an organisation is primarily a matter 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,&quot; it further said. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The court said &quot;the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of 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,&quot; it said.&nbsp; </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The apex court gave the verdict while dismissing a plea against denial of information regarding a government servant's service matters and also the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The information seeker had approached the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour) on August 27, 2008 seeking various details relating to a person employed as an Enforcement Officer in the Sub-Regional Office, Akola. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> He had also sought the details of the gifts accepted by the official, his family members and friends and relatives on his son's marriage. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> Holding that the information sought for is contained in the income tax returns of the official, the apex court said the Central Information Commission and the Bombay High Court had dealt with them and there was no question of disagreement with the two fora. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition,&quot; the bench said. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner ie, the 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,&quot; the bench said. </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'Outlook, 4 October, 2012, http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=777290', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'it-returns-performance-report-out-of-rti-ambit-sc-17411', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 17411, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], '[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[repository]' => 'Articles' }, 'articleid' => (int) 17283, 'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | IT Returns, Performance Report Out of RTI Ambit: SC', 'metaKeywords' => 'Right to Information,rti', 'metaDesc' => ' -Outlook The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are &quot;personal information&quot; which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest...', 'disp' => '<div style="text-align: justify">-Outlook</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are &quot;personal information&quot; which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest is involved.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The apex court added that under the transparency law, information pertaining to the performance of an employee or officer cannot be made public as it is a matter between the employee and the employer which falls under the expression of &quot;personal information&quot; and cannot be claimed as a right by others.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are &quot;personal information&quot; which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless a larger public interest is involved and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information,&quot; a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;The performance of an employee or officer in an organisation is primarily a matter 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,&quot; it further said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The court said &quot;the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of 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,&quot; it said.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The apex court gave the verdict while dismissing a plea against denial of information regarding a government servant's service matters and also the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The information seeker had approached the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour) on August 27, 2008 seeking various details relating to a person employed as an Enforcement Officer in the Sub-Regional Office, Akola.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">He had also sought the details of the gifts accepted by the official, his family members and friends and relatives on his son's marriage.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Holding that the information sought for is contained in the income tax returns of the official, the apex court said the Central Information Commission and the Bombay High Court had dealt with them and there was no question of disagreement with the two fora.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition,&quot; the bench said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner ie, the 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,&quot; the bench said.</div>', 'lang' => 'English', 'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/', 'site_title' => 'im4change', 'adminprix' => 'admin' ] $article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 17283, 'title' => 'IT Returns, Performance Report Out of RTI Ambit: SC', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div style="text-align: justify"> -Outlook </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are &quot;personal information&quot; which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest is involved. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The apex court added that under the transparency law, information pertaining to the performance of an employee or officer cannot be made public as it is a matter between the employee and the employer which falls under the expression of &quot;personal information&quot; and cannot be claimed as a right by others. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are &quot;personal information&quot; which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless a larger public interest is involved and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information,&quot; a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra said. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;The performance of an employee or officer in an organisation is primarily a matter 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,&quot; it further said. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The court said &quot;the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of 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,&quot; it said.&nbsp; </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The apex court gave the verdict while dismissing a plea against denial of information regarding a government servant's service matters and also the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The information seeker had approached the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour) on August 27, 2008 seeking various details relating to a person employed as an Enforcement Officer in the Sub-Regional Office, Akola. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> He had also sought the details of the gifts accepted by the official, his family members and friends and relatives on his son's marriage. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> Holding that the information sought for is contained in the income tax returns of the official, the apex court said the Central Information Commission and the Bombay High Court had dealt with them and there was no question of disagreement with the two fora. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition,&quot; the bench said. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner ie, the 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,&quot; the bench said. </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'Outlook, 4 October, 2012, http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=777290', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'it-returns-performance-report-out-of-rti-ambit-sc-17411', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 17411, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {} ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ '*' => true, 'id' => false ], '[dirty]' => [], '[original]' => [], '[virtual]' => [], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [], '[invalid]' => [], '[repository]' => 'Articles' } $articleid = (int) 17283 $metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | IT Returns, Performance Report Out of RTI Ambit: SC' $metaKeywords = 'Right to Information,rti' $metaDesc = ' -Outlook The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are &quot;personal information&quot; which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest...' $disp = '<div style="text-align: justify">-Outlook</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are &quot;personal information&quot; which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest is involved.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The apex court added that under the transparency law, information pertaining to the performance of an employee or officer cannot be made public as it is a matter between the employee and the employer which falls under the expression of &quot;personal information&quot; and cannot be claimed as a right by others.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are &quot;personal information&quot; which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless a larger public interest is involved and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information,&quot; a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;The performance of an employee or officer in an organisation is primarily a matter 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,&quot; it further said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The court said &quot;the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of 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,&quot; it said.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The apex court gave the verdict while dismissing a plea against denial of information regarding a government servant's service matters and also the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The information seeker had approached the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour) on August 27, 2008 seeking various details relating to a person employed as an Enforcement Officer in the Sub-Regional Office, Akola.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">He had also sought the details of the gifts accepted by the official, his family members and friends and relatives on his son's marriage.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Holding that the information sought for is contained in the income tax returns of the official, the apex court said the Central Information Commission and the Bombay High Court had dealt with them and there was no question of disagreement with the two fora.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition,&quot; the bench said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner ie, the 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,&quot; the bench said.</div>' $lang = 'English' $SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/' $site_title = 'im4change' $adminprix = 'admin'</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8 Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413 Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374 Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927 Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885 Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/it-returns-performance-report-out-of-rti-ambit-sc-17411.html"/> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/> <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"/> <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | IT Returns, Performance Report Out of RTI Ambit: SC | Im4change.org</title> <meta name="description" content=" -Outlook The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are "personal information" which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest..."/> <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script> <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript"> $(document).ready(function () { var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem var pic_real_width, pic_real_height; $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues .attr("src", $(img).attr("src")) .load(function () { pic_real_width = this.width; // Note: $(this).width() will not pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images. }); }); </script> <style type="text/css"> @media screen { div.divFooter { display: block; } } @media print { .printbutton { display: none !important; } } </style> </head> <body> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center"> <tr> <td class="top_bg"> <div class="divFooter"> <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0" alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/> </div> </td> </tr> <tr> <td id="topspace"> </td> </tr> <tr id="topspace"> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%"> <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal"> <strong>IT Returns, Performance Report Out of RTI Ambit: SC</strong></h1> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3"> <div style="text-align: justify">-Outlook</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are "personal information" which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest is involved.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The apex court added that under the transparency law, information pertaining to the performance of an employee or officer cannot be made public as it is a matter between the employee and the employer which falls under the expression of "personal information" and cannot be claimed as a right by others.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">"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 a larger public interest is involved and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information," a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">"The performance of an employee or officer in an organisation is primarily a matter 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," it further said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The court said "the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">"Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of 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," it said. </div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The apex court gave the verdict while dismissing a plea against denial of information regarding a government servant's service matters and also the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The information seeker had approached the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour) on August 27, 2008 seeking various details relating to a person employed as an Enforcement Officer in the Sub-Regional Office, Akola.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">He had also sought the details of the gifts accepted by the official, his family members and friends and relatives on his son's marriage.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Holding that the information sought for is contained in the income tax returns of the official, the apex court said the Central Information Commission and the Bombay High Court had dealt with them and there was no question of disagreement with the two fora.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">"We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition," the bench said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">"We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner ie, the 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 bench said.</div> </font> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> </table></body> </html>' } $reasonPhrase = 'OK'header - [internal], line ?? Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148 Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54 Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141 [main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]Code Context$value
), $first);
$first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) { 'status' => (int) 200, 'contentType' => 'text/html', 'headers' => [ 'Content-Type' => [ [maximum depth reached] ] ], 'file' => null, 'fileRange' => [], 'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {}, 'cacheDirectives' => [], 'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68000f156239f-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68000f156239f-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr68000f156239f-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68000f156239f-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68000f156239f-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68000f156239f-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68000f156239f-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr68000f156239f-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">> </span></span></code> <span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000"> <link rel="canonical" href="<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">); </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>/<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>.html"/> </span></code></span> <code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"> </span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type" </span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html; charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/> </span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr68000f156239f-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp' $dataForView = [ 'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 17283, 'title' => 'IT Returns, Performance Report Out of RTI Ambit: SC', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div style="text-align: justify"> -Outlook </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are &quot;personal information&quot; which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest is involved. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The apex court added that under the transparency law, information pertaining to the performance of an employee or officer cannot be made public as it is a matter between the employee and the employer which falls under the expression of &quot;personal information&quot; and cannot be claimed as a right by others. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are &quot;personal information&quot; which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless a larger public interest is involved and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information,&quot; a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra said. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;The performance of an employee or officer in an organisation is primarily a matter 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,&quot; it further said. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The court said &quot;the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of 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,&quot; it said.&nbsp; </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The apex court gave the verdict while dismissing a plea against denial of information regarding a government servant's service matters and also the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The information seeker had approached the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour) on August 27, 2008 seeking various details relating to a person employed as an Enforcement Officer in the Sub-Regional Office, Akola. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> He had also sought the details of the gifts accepted by the official, his family members and friends and relatives on his son's marriage. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> Holding that the information sought for is contained in the income tax returns of the official, the apex court said the Central Information Commission and the Bombay High Court had dealt with them and there was no question of disagreement with the two fora. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition,&quot; the bench said. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner ie, the 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,&quot; the bench said. </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'Outlook, 4 October, 2012, http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=777290', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'it-returns-performance-report-out-of-rti-ambit-sc-17411', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 17411, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], '[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[repository]' => 'Articles' }, 'articleid' => (int) 17283, 'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | IT Returns, Performance Report Out of RTI Ambit: SC', 'metaKeywords' => 'Right to Information,rti', 'metaDesc' => ' -Outlook The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are &quot;personal information&quot; which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest...', 'disp' => '<div style="text-align: justify">-Outlook</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are &quot;personal information&quot; which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest is involved.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The apex court added that under the transparency law, information pertaining to the performance of an employee or officer cannot be made public as it is a matter between the employee and the employer which falls under the expression of &quot;personal information&quot; and cannot be claimed as a right by others.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are &quot;personal information&quot; which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless a larger public interest is involved and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information,&quot; a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;The performance of an employee or officer in an organisation is primarily a matter 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,&quot; it further said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The court said &quot;the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of 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,&quot; it said.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The apex court gave the verdict while dismissing a plea against denial of information regarding a government servant's service matters and also the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The information seeker had approached the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour) on August 27, 2008 seeking various details relating to a person employed as an Enforcement Officer in the Sub-Regional Office, Akola.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">He had also sought the details of the gifts accepted by the official, his family members and friends and relatives on his son's marriage.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Holding that the information sought for is contained in the income tax returns of the official, the apex court said the Central Information Commission and the Bombay High Court had dealt with them and there was no question of disagreement with the two fora.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition,&quot; the bench said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner ie, the 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,&quot; the bench said.</div>', 'lang' => 'English', 'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/', 'site_title' => 'im4change', 'adminprix' => 'admin' ] $article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 17283, 'title' => 'IT Returns, Performance Report Out of RTI Ambit: SC', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div style="text-align: justify"> -Outlook </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are &quot;personal information&quot; which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest is involved. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The apex court added that under the transparency law, information pertaining to the performance of an employee or officer cannot be made public as it is a matter between the employee and the employer which falls under the expression of &quot;personal information&quot; and cannot be claimed as a right by others. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are &quot;personal information&quot; which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless a larger public interest is involved and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information,&quot; a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra said. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;The performance of an employee or officer in an organisation is primarily a matter 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,&quot; it further said. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The court said &quot;the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of 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,&quot; it said.&nbsp; </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The apex court gave the verdict while dismissing a plea against denial of information regarding a government servant's service matters and also the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The information seeker had approached the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour) on August 27, 2008 seeking various details relating to a person employed as an Enforcement Officer in the Sub-Regional Office, Akola. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> He had also sought the details of the gifts accepted by the official, his family members and friends and relatives on his son's marriage. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> Holding that the information sought for is contained in the income tax returns of the official, the apex court said the Central Information Commission and the Bombay High Court had dealt with them and there was no question of disagreement with the two fora. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition,&quot; the bench said. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> &quot;We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner ie, the 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,&quot; the bench said. </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'Outlook, 4 October, 2012, http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=777290', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'it-returns-performance-report-out-of-rti-ambit-sc-17411', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 17411, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {} ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ '*' => true, 'id' => false ], '[dirty]' => [], '[original]' => [], '[virtual]' => [], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [], '[invalid]' => [], '[repository]' => 'Articles' } $articleid = (int) 17283 $metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | IT Returns, Performance Report Out of RTI Ambit: SC' $metaKeywords = 'Right to Information,rti' $metaDesc = ' -Outlook The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are &quot;personal information&quot; which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest...' $disp = '<div style="text-align: justify">-Outlook</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are &quot;personal information&quot; which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest is involved.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The apex court added that under the transparency law, information pertaining to the performance of an employee or officer cannot be made public as it is a matter between the employee and the employer which falls under the expression of &quot;personal information&quot; and cannot be claimed as a right by others.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are &quot;personal information&quot; which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless a larger public interest is involved and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information,&quot; a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;The performance of an employee or officer in an organisation is primarily a matter 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,&quot; it further said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The court said &quot;the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of 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,&quot; it said.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The apex court gave the verdict while dismissing a plea against denial of information regarding a government servant's service matters and also the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The information seeker had approached the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour) on August 27, 2008 seeking various details relating to a person employed as an Enforcement Officer in the Sub-Regional Office, Akola.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">He had also sought the details of the gifts accepted by the official, his family members and friends and relatives on his son's marriage.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Holding that the information sought for is contained in the income tax returns of the official, the apex court said the Central Information Commission and the Bombay High Court had dealt with them and there was no question of disagreement with the two fora.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition,&quot; the bench said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&quot;We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner ie, the 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,&quot; the bench said.</div>' $lang = 'English' $SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/' $site_title = 'im4change' $adminprix = 'admin'</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8 Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413 Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374 Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927 Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885 Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/it-returns-performance-report-out-of-rti-ambit-sc-17411.html"/> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/> <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"/> <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | IT Returns, Performance Report Out of RTI Ambit: SC | Im4change.org</title> <meta name="description" content=" -Outlook The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are "personal information" which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest..."/> <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script> <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript"> $(document).ready(function () { var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem var pic_real_width, pic_real_height; $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues .attr("src", $(img).attr("src")) .load(function () { pic_real_width = this.width; // Note: $(this).width() will not pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images. }); }); </script> <style type="text/css"> @media screen { div.divFooter { display: block; } } @media print { .printbutton { display: none !important; } } </style> </head> <body> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center"> <tr> <td class="top_bg"> <div class="divFooter"> <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0" alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/> </div> </td> </tr> <tr> <td id="topspace"> </td> </tr> <tr id="topspace"> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%"> <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal"> <strong>IT Returns, Performance Report Out of RTI Ambit: SC</strong></h1> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3"> <div style="text-align: justify">-Outlook</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are "personal information" which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest is involved.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The apex court added that under the transparency law, information pertaining to the performance of an employee or officer cannot be made public as it is a matter between the employee and the employer which falls under the expression of "personal information" and cannot be claimed as a right by others.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">"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 a larger public interest is involved and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information," a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">"The performance of an employee or officer in an organisation is primarily a matter 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," it further said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The court said "the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">"Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of 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," it said. </div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The apex court gave the verdict while dismissing a plea against denial of information regarding a government servant's service matters and also the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The information seeker had approached the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour) on August 27, 2008 seeking various details relating to a person employed as an Enforcement Officer in the Sub-Regional Office, Akola.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">He had also sought the details of the gifts accepted by the official, his family members and friends and relatives on his son's marriage.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Holding that the information sought for is contained in the income tax returns of the official, the apex court said the Central Information Commission and the Bombay High Court had dealt with them and there was no question of disagreement with the two fora.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">"We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition," the bench said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">"We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner ie, the 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 bench said.</div> </font> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> </table></body> </html>' } $cookies = [] $values = [ (int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8' ] $name = 'Content-Type' $first = true $value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'header - [internal], line ?? Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181 Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55 Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141 [main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39
<head>
<link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp' $dataForView = [ 'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 17283, 'title' => 'IT Returns, Performance Report Out of RTI Ambit: SC', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div style="text-align: justify"> -Outlook </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are "personal information" which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest is involved. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The apex court added that under the transparency law, information pertaining to the performance of an employee or officer cannot be made public as it is a matter between the employee and the employer which falls under the expression of "personal information" and cannot be claimed as a right by others. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> "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 a larger public interest is involved and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information," a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra said. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> "The performance of an employee or officer in an organisation is primarily a matter 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," it further said. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The court said "the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> "Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of 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," it said. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The apex court gave the verdict while dismissing a plea against denial of information regarding a government servant's service matters and also the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The information seeker had approached the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour) on August 27, 2008 seeking various details relating to a person employed as an Enforcement Officer in the Sub-Regional Office, Akola. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> He had also sought the details of the gifts accepted by the official, his family members and friends and relatives on his son's marriage. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> Holding that the information sought for is contained in the income tax returns of the official, the apex court said the Central Information Commission and the Bombay High Court had dealt with them and there was no question of disagreement with the two fora. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> "We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition," the bench said. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> "We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner ie, the 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 bench said. </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'Outlook, 4 October, 2012, http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=777290', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'it-returns-performance-report-out-of-rti-ambit-sc-17411', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 17411, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], '[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[repository]' => 'Articles' }, 'articleid' => (int) 17283, 'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | IT Returns, Performance Report Out of RTI Ambit: SC', 'metaKeywords' => 'Right to Information,rti', 'metaDesc' => ' -Outlook The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are "personal information" which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest...', 'disp' => '<div style="text-align: justify">-Outlook</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are "personal information" which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest is involved.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The apex court added that under the transparency law, information pertaining to the performance of an employee or officer cannot be made public as it is a matter between the employee and the employer which falls under the expression of "personal information" and cannot be claimed as a right by others.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">"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 a larger public interest is involved and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information," a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">"The performance of an employee or officer in an organisation is primarily a matter 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," it further said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The court said "the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">"Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of 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," it said. </div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The apex court gave the verdict while dismissing a plea against denial of information regarding a government servant's service matters and also the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The information seeker had approached the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour) on August 27, 2008 seeking various details relating to a person employed as an Enforcement Officer in the Sub-Regional Office, Akola.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">He had also sought the details of the gifts accepted by the official, his family members and friends and relatives on his son's marriage.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Holding that the information sought for is contained in the income tax returns of the official, the apex court said the Central Information Commission and the Bombay High Court had dealt with them and there was no question of disagreement with the two fora.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">"We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition," the bench said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">"We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner ie, the 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 bench said.</div>', 'lang' => 'English', 'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/', 'site_title' => 'im4change', 'adminprix' => 'admin' ] $article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 17283, 'title' => 'IT Returns, Performance Report Out of RTI Ambit: SC', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div style="text-align: justify"> -Outlook </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are "personal information" which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest is involved. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The apex court added that under the transparency law, information pertaining to the performance of an employee or officer cannot be made public as it is a matter between the employee and the employer which falls under the expression of "personal information" and cannot be claimed as a right by others. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> "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 a larger public interest is involved and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information," a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra said. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> "The performance of an employee or officer in an organisation is primarily a matter 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," it further said. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The court said "the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> "Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of 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," it said. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The apex court gave the verdict while dismissing a plea against denial of information regarding a government servant's service matters and also the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The information seeker had approached the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour) on August 27, 2008 seeking various details relating to a person employed as an Enforcement Officer in the Sub-Regional Office, Akola. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> He had also sought the details of the gifts accepted by the official, his family members and friends and relatives on his son's marriage. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> Holding that the information sought for is contained in the income tax returns of the official, the apex court said the Central Information Commission and the Bombay High Court had dealt with them and there was no question of disagreement with the two fora. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> "We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition," the bench said. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> "We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner ie, the 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 bench said. </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'Outlook, 4 October, 2012, http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=777290', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'it-returns-performance-report-out-of-rti-ambit-sc-17411', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 17411, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {} ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ '*' => true, 'id' => false ], '[dirty]' => [], '[original]' => [], '[virtual]' => [], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [], '[invalid]' => [], '[repository]' => 'Articles' } $articleid = (int) 17283 $metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | IT Returns, Performance Report Out of RTI Ambit: SC' $metaKeywords = 'Right to Information,rti' $metaDesc = ' -Outlook The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are "personal information" which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest...' $disp = '<div style="text-align: justify">-Outlook</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are "personal information" which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest is involved.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The apex court added that under the transparency law, information pertaining to the performance of an employee or officer cannot be made public as it is a matter between the employee and the employer which falls under the expression of "personal information" and cannot be claimed as a right by others.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">"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 a larger public interest is involved and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information," a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">"The performance of an employee or officer in an organisation is primarily a matter 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," it further said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The court said "the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">"Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of 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," it said. </div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The apex court gave the verdict while dismissing a plea against denial of information regarding a government servant's service matters and also the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The information seeker had approached the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour) on August 27, 2008 seeking various details relating to a person employed as an Enforcement Officer in the Sub-Regional Office, Akola.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">He had also sought the details of the gifts accepted by the official, his family members and friends and relatives on his son's marriage.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Holding that the information sought for is contained in the income tax returns of the official, the apex court said the Central Information Commission and the Bombay High Court had dealt with them and there was no question of disagreement with the two fora.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">"We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition," the bench said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">"We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner ie, the 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 bench said.</div>' $lang = 'English' $SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/' $site_title = 'im4change' $adminprix = 'admin'
include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8 Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413 Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374 Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927 Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885 Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
![]() |
IT Returns, Performance Report Out of RTI Ambit: SC |
-Outlook The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person's income tax returns and performance of an employee are "personal information" which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest is involved. The apex court added that under the transparency law, information pertaining to the performance of an employee or officer cannot be made public as it is a matter between the employee and the employer which falls under the expression of "personal information" and cannot be claimed as a right by others. "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 a larger public interest is involved and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information," a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra said. "The performance of an employee or officer in an organisation is primarily a matter 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," it further said. The court said "the disclosure of such information 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 of 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," it said. The apex court gave the verdict while dismissing a plea against denial of information regarding a government servant's service matters and also the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties. The information seeker had approached the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour) on August 27, 2008 seeking various details relating to a person employed as an Enforcement Officer in the Sub-Regional Office, Akola. He had also sought the details of the gifts accepted by the official, his family members and friends and relatives on his son's marriage. Holding that the information sought for is contained in the income tax returns of the official, the apex court said the Central Information Commission and the Bombay High Court had dealt with them and there was no question of disagreement with the two fora. "We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition," the bench said. "We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner ie, the 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 bench said.
|