The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the Haj Committee of India to revisit an RTI application seeking details of expenditure on the maintenance of Mumbai's Haj House, room allotments and an umbrella procurement contract, holding that the authority had wrongly invoked privacy exemptions to deny the information.
The Haj Committee of India is a statutory body under the Ministry of Minority Affairs.
Information Commissioner Sanjeev Kumar Jindal observed that the Haj Committee had incorrectly applied Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to withhold information relating to public expenditure and failed to provide clear replies on certain allegations raised by the applicant.
The case arose from an RTI application seeking information on advance withdrawals and settlement of bills for Haj House maintenance, alleged free allotment of rooms to relatives and associates of officials, the award of an umbrella supply contract during Haj 2022, and certain service-related matters concerning Haj Committee employees.
The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) had denied parts of the information citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, while stating that accommodation at Haj House was allotted as per approved bye-laws and that some information sought was either not available or did not fall within the definition of "information" under the Act. The First Appellate Authority upheld the CPIO's reply.
Section 8(1)(j) exempts personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
During the hearing, the appellant argued that the information related to financial and administrative irregularities involves public funds and institutional integrity and should not have been withheld under the RTI Act. The Haj Committee maintained that all information permissible under the Act had already been furnished through a point-wise reply.
In its order, the Commission said expenditure on the maintenance of Haj House "cannot be treated as third-party information" and therefore could not be denied by invoking Section 8(1)(j).
It also noted that the CPIO had failed to give clear replies regarding the alleged free allotment of rooms and the allegation that the umbrella supply contract had been awarded to the fourth-lowest bidder.
The CIC directed the CPIO to re-examine the RTI application and furnish a revised reply on points relating to maintenance expenditure, room allotments and the umbrella contract strictly in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act.