NEW DELHI: Medical records of reimbursements of judges can't be disclosed under RTI Act since it doesn't serve any public interest, the Delhi high court has held in an important ruling.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru on Friday set aside a CIC ruling asking the Supreme Court to maintain details of medical reimbursement availed of by each Supreme Court judge in the last three years to be furnished to information seekers.
The HC termed the CIC ruling "erroneous" and said that "medical records are not liable to be disclosed unless it is shown that the same is in larger public interest. In the present case, the CIC has completely overlooked this aspect of the matter."
In the process the court allowed an appeal filed against the CIC order of 2012 where the commission had directed it to disclose details of medical reimbursement of judges in the last three years. Responding to RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal's plea, the Supreme Court had said it does not keep records of medical reimbursement of individual judges and, declined to furnish him the information under the transparency Act. When Agarwal appealed in CIC the latter in 2010 asked SC to make arrangements to maintain details of medical reimbursement made to judges. They should, it had specified, be maintained in digital format so that their retrieval and disclosure could be easier.
However, the SC refused, citing a stay by Delhi HC in a similar case, prompting Agarwal to once again approach CIC. In its second order in 2012, CIC directed the apex court to place the order before the Secretary General of the Supreme Court so that he can ensure its compliance.
It is against this order that SC had moved HC in appeal. Justice Bakhru stressed that "information relating to the medical records would be personal information which is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The medical bills would indicate the treatment and/or medicines required by individuals and this would clearly be an invasion of the privacy."
Justice Vibhu Bakhru on Friday set aside a CIC ruling asking the Supreme Court to maintain details of medical reimbursement availed of by each Supreme Court judge in the last three years to be furnished to information seekers.
The HC termed the CIC ruling "erroneous" and said that "medical records are not liable to be disclosed unless it is shown that the same is in larger public interest. In the present case, the CIC has completely overlooked this aspect of the matter."
In the process the court allowed an appeal filed against the CIC order of 2012 where the commission had directed it to disclose details of medical reimbursement of judges in the last three years. Responding to RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal's plea, the Supreme Court had said it does not keep records of medical reimbursement of individual judges and, declined to furnish him the information under the transparency Act. When Agarwal appealed in CIC the latter in 2010 asked SC to make arrangements to maintain details of medical reimbursement made to judges. They should, it had specified, be maintained in digital format so that their retrieval and disclosure could be easier.
However, the SC refused, citing a stay by Delhi HC in a similar case, prompting Agarwal to once again approach CIC. In its second order in 2012, CIC directed the apex court to place the order before the Secretary General of the Supreme Court so that he can ensure its compliance.
It is against this order that SC had moved HC in appeal. Justice Bakhru stressed that "information relating to the medical records would be personal information which is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The medical bills would indicate the treatment and/or medicines required by individuals and this would clearly be an invasion of the privacy."
No comments:
Post a Comment