The CIC has refused to disclose information about the health status of Presidents under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, terming it as "sensitive personal data".
However, the Central Information Commission said the expenses borne for their treatment could be provided after verifying the constitutional provisions.
"The Delhi High Court has discussed the concept of fiduciary relationship in some detail. A doctor's observation with regard to a patient is a doctor-patient relationship that lies at the heart of fiduciary and therefore, exempt under Section 8 (1) (e) in addition to Section 8 (1) (j)," the transparency watchdog said in its order upholding the decision of the Central Public Information Officer in this regard.
Both sections of the Act bars information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.
Exercising his Right to Information, Ashwini Shrivastava had last year asked for the details of health status of all former Presidents and the incumbent and medical expenses incurred by the Secretariat.
The CPIO, Faiz Ahmad Kidwai, has on March 3, 2009 refused to disclose the information saying that "the desired information is personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and, therefore, is hereby rejected..."
However, the appellant later curtailed the information sought agreed to get information only with regard to present President Pratibha Patil.
In response to this, the First Appellate Authority in her order on May 5, 2009 has held "In his appeal, the appellant has stated that since the medical expenditure is paid by the Government, the citizens have a right to know.
"On going through the case I find that the stand taken by the CPIO is in order. Apart from this, collection of this data would also derail the administrative machinery disproportionately. The appeal stands dismissed," the FAA said in the order.
Aggrieved over the response, the applicant had moved the Central Information Commission.
"...We uphold the decision of CPIO in refusing the information sought, which as has been clarified in the hearing cannot also be sought by Parliament,"