Central Information Commission
Snigdhoneel Roy Choudhury vs Indian Institute Of Technology, ... on 19 September, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/IITKH/A/2022/650190
Snigdhoneel Roy Choudhury .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Section Officer-(RTI Section), Indian Institute of
Technology-Kharagpur (Ministry of Education),
Post Office--Kharagpur, Kharagpur,
Paschim Medinipur-721302 (West Bengal).
प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.04.2022
CPIO replied on : 11.05.2022
First appeal filed on : 01.07.2022
First Appellate Authority order : 01.07.2022
Second Appeal received at CIC : 16.09.2022
Date of Hearing : 19.09.2023
Date of Decision : 19.09.2023
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
1. Please confirm if the PhD thesis of Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya (Professor of Mining Engineering and School of Environmental Science and Engineering at IIT Kharagpur) was awarded by IIT Kharagpur,
2. If yes, please provide certified copies of all records related to decisions relating to award of the said PhD including minutes of meetings, decisions, internal communications and notes.Page 1 of 4
3. Please clarify if there was any subsequent discussion or review with respect to the chapter on CUSUM (cumulative sum analysis) in the said PhD thesis of Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya. If yes, please provide certified copies of all records related to the same, including minutes of meetings, decisions, internal communications and notes.
4. Please clarify what are the grounds for revocation of any degree (including PhD) awarded by any IIT. Please provide us a list of precedents of such revocation in any IIT.
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 11.05.2022, as under:
The available document / information (03 page) as received from deputy registrar (academic), IIT Kharagpur is enclosed here with. Point 1 Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya was awarded ph. D. degree in 39 th convocation.
Point no 2 and 3 Information sought for may not be provided under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. 2005.
Point no 4 available information in this regards is attached herewith at annexure -I • Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 01.07.2022.
• The FAA vide order dated 01.07.2022 held as under:
• Written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 08.09.2023.
However, Information pertaining to point no. 01 & 04 has already been provided to the appellant within the time frame of RTI Act through RTI Portal on 12-05-2023 and through email on 13-07-2023 as the appellant had filed this RT! application through online RTI Portal. (Annexure-VIl) Regarding Query No. 02-03: marks obtained, grades, and answer sheets, professional records, including qualification, evaluation reports etc of a student is personal information of third party which is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Information Commissioner Ms. Saroj Punhani, CIC, New Delhi in the matter of Shri Har Sukhdeep Singh vs IIT Kharagpur vide Decision No. CIC/ITKH/A/2020/106698 dated 21-09-2021 in which the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. (2013) 1 SCC 212 and RK. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr,, (2013) 14 SCC 794 has been referred. The following was thus held:
Page 2 of 4"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades, and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information.
Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceeding, etc. are all personal information Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilties, income tex returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indictive and not exhaustive..."
In view of the above submission and the chronological event, the appeal may be disposed of.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Mr. Divanshu (Authorised Representative) Respondent: 1. Animesh Kumar (Asst. Registrar)
2. Santanu Das (APIO) (Deputy Registrar) Appellant has submitted that he has not received the information. He further requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to furnish the relevant information.
Upon the Commissions instance, the CPIO has submitted that they have provided the point wise reply to the appellant. He further stated that point 2-3 of the RTI Application is related to third party information. He further stated that he would abide by the orders of the Commission.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the complainant, free of Page 3 of 4 cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Thus, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy.
(अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 4 of 4