Larger public interest more important than personal privacy: CIC

SETTING PRECEDENT? Information panel orders disclosure of info on live-in relationship of NLU professors to save dignity of university

NEW DELHI: The Central Information Commission has ordered Delhi-based National Law University (NLU) to disclose information relating to two faculty members said to be in a live-in relationship, ruling that larger public interest could override privacy of individuals.

Referring to the case, the commission said the larger public interest was the dignity and reputation of the university, and its faculty as a whole.

The commission frowned at Delhi resident, Vijyant Singh Chauhan, who complained in January 2013 about the live-in relationship of two faculty members. He said the professor was married to his step sister and was in an adulterous relationship.

Chauhan had followed up his complaint with a right to information request to get details of the action taken on his complaint.

“No person should be encouraged to use RTI to throw reckless allegations mentioning abhorrent offences against faculty members of such a national law school which is serving needs of quality legal education,” the information commissioner said.

The complainant’s step-sister, identified in the CIC verdict as Ms Z to ensure her privacy, however, told the university that she had already parted ways with the professor and insisted that the university should not divulge any information to Chauhan.

The university, however, gave Chauhan the inquiry report but he still appealed to the CIC. He wanted the response sent by the faculty members who were allegedly having an affair and his sister to the inquiry committee. All three were against information being disclosed.

Information Commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu’s job was, however, made easier as the documents that had brought Chauhan to the commission didn’t really have much. The two faculty members had refused to respond to the charges in their letters to the university, saying that they had no comments to offer.

But should even this information be given?

Acharyulu felt that if the public authority hides this information, it might convey a “wrongful impression that some unwanted personal affairs are being covered up”.

Disclosure of this “no comment” of the two faculty members cannot result in any invasion of their privacy, he said, ruling that it would meet the appellant’s demand and “protect the dignity of three persons”: the appellant’s sister and the two professors.