Third party clause under RTI is applicable between Husband and Wife

The Central Information Commission (CIC) recently refused a request by husband to get hold of information about his wife’s locker. 
  
The appellant had filed his RTI application on 02.05.2012 seeking information pertaining to operation of a locker of his wife. The PIO of the bank denied information to the appellant under section 8(1)(d),(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The first appellate authority (FAA) also upheld the decision of PIO. The appellant then filed a second appeal on 18.07.2012 with the Commission.

The appellant referred to his RTI application of 02.05.2012 and stated that he is seeking information regarding the operation of his wife’s locker. The appellant submitted that he has strained relations with his wife and he wanted to know on what dates and how many times, the locker was operated by his wife during a certain period. The appellant also requested for statement of wife’s savings bank account and details of fixed deposits till date.

The CIC ruled that the approach of respondent bank was in conformity with the provision of RTI Act and hence it upheld the decision of PIO and FAA.

Applicability of RTI Act in Private Schools: Chief Information Commission

In the significant decision, Ms. Sadhana Dixit Vs. Directorate Of Education, the Central Information Commission (CIC) ruled that private schools cannot deny to provide information on service records and salaries of an employee. The Chief Information has ruled that private schools governed by laws like the Delhi Education Act will have to provide the information.

The Appellant an ex-employee of Jindal Public School under the Directorate of Education had filed an RTI to obtain a certified copy of service book, copies of her appointment letter  and staff statements of all the employees. The Directorate of Education provided all the information available with them but the school did not share any of the information asked by the appellant on the grounds that the RTI Act did not apply to a private institution.

The Appellant preferred a second appeal before the Commission after she was unsatisfied with the information provided by the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Directorate. Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu directed the school to provide her with the information requisitioned under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and said that the school “has a duty under sections 4 and 8 of the Delhi Education Act 1973, to abide by the regulatory conditions of service, payment of salaries as prescribed, etc for which the school has to maintain the records, which provide an inherent and implied right to information to their employees.”

The Commissioner also noted that, “Under Right to Education Act 2009 also, the recognized school is under an obligation to appoint eligible teachers and provide them with prescribed wages. This also reveals that it has given inherent Right to Information to the teachers from their employers.”The Commissioner then directed the school to furnish the information sought by the appellant under the law to the Directorate of Education who in turn would provide it to the appellant.

This decision by the Information Commission will now ensure transparency in the service records of teachers and other staff among private schools governed by the Delhi Education Act.