Central Information Commission
Savita Dubey vs Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi on 30 June, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/JNUND/C/2019/656095
Savita Dubey ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Jawahar Lal Nehru University,
RTI Cell, Room No. - 117, Administrative
Block, New Mehrauli Road, Munirka,
New Delhi - 110067. .... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28/06/2021
Date of Decision : 28/06/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 22/08/2019
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 03/10/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 16/10/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06/11/2019
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application on 22.08.2019 seeking following information:-
1. "Provide the information about the diary number and date vide which the office of the Chancellor of Jawahar Lal Nehru University received my complaint.
2. Provide me the information about the diary number and date vide which the Controller of Examination received my complaint.1
3. Please provide me the information whether Ld. Chancellor on my complaint set up any enquiry against Ms Sonali Aggarwal.
4. If "YES", Provide the information about name and designation of the enquiry officer.
5. Provide the information whether Ms. Sonali Aggarwal against whom I made complaint is still pursuing any course from JNU , If yes, Provide me the information about the name of the course which she is pursuing from JNU along with the date of enrollment in the said course and expected date of completion of the said course.
6. Provide the information about the action taken against Ms Sonali Aggarwal for pursuing two full time concurrent courses at the same time and the concealment of facts from the University.
7. Provide the information about the actions which are taken by the JNU regarding the validity of the M.Phil Degree, which Ms Sonali Aggarwal obtained from JNU by concealment of material facts regarding concealment of her another concurrent full time course i.e LLB and getting salary from a private educational institute at the same time.
8. As the matter relate to gross misconduct and fraud with the education system, So provide me the information whether any action has been initiated against Ms Sonali Aggarwal U/s 5(4) The Jawaharlal Nehru University Act, 1966 to withdraw her M.Phil Degree awarded by JNU to her."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 03.10.2019. In respect to her first appeal, FAA's order dated 16.10.2019 stated as follows:-
"As per the records available,...RTI application was processed and forwarded to the concerned deemed PIOs i.e. Office of Chancellor, CoE, JR (Admissions) and JR (Eval.) of the University. The information/reply as received from the concerned branches was sent to the Complainant vide CPIO's letter dated 30.09.2019(containing 04 pages). However, reply of query No. 1 of RTI application is still awaited from the office of Chancellor, JNU and will be provided to Complainant as soon as possible."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint for non receipt of complete desired information from the CPIO more particularly with reference to point no 1 pertaining to the speed post 2 tracking ID details . She also narrated her grievance stating that "she a complaint VIDE Ref:- Complaint/SGI/AUGUST/01 DATED 9TH AUGUST 2019 to the Chancellor AND The Controller of Examination of Jawahar Lal Nehru University against Ms Sonali Aggarwal W/o Sunil Kumar Bhardwaj, R/oC-4/39,Sudamapuri ,Gamri Extension ,Delhi-110053, who obtained or pursuing M.Phil Degree from JNU vide Enrollment No:- 15/66/MS/013 ,Registration No:- 26669 by fraud/concealment or fabricated means and pursued her M.Phil with another full time concurrent degree i.e LLB (Full Time) from CCS University during same period , which is a serious matter and dent on the education system and against the intention of the UGC and Hon'ble Double Bench OF MADRAS HIGH COURT detailed judgment DATED :
20.04.2016 which complainant already supplied along with her complaint."
The above said facts and circumstances led her to filing of RTI Application. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Represented by Advocate Pradeep Nawani through audio- conference.
Respondent: Manoj Kumar, Deputy Registrar & CPIO, present through audio- conference.
The Rep. of Complainant while narrating the factual context of RTI Application stated that he is aggrieved by the fact that FAA wrongly held that information has already been supplied to the Complainant; however, even if he had accepted this position, the fact remains that FAA erred in not providing a copy of the CPIO's reply containing the desired information. He further harped on the delay aspect and stated that information against point no. 1 i.e. diary number was not provided to the Complainant till date which is in violation of provisions of RTI Act. He contested that JNU authorities are in a habit of not responding to the RTI Applications within the stipulated time frame of RTI Act.
The Commission apprised the Rep. of Complainant that information sought for at points no. 5, 6, 7 & 8 of RTI Application regarding the course pursued and other related details of Sonali Bhardwaj pertains to her personal information, disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, the Rep. of Complainant agreed to Commission's observation and did not press for any further action on the said points.3
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his written submission dated 21.06.2021, relevant portion of which is as under -
1. "The RTI application was received in the University on 23.08.2019.
2. The RTI application was processed and forwarded to the concerned PIOs of the University i.e. Controller of Examination, Office of VC, JR (Eval.) and JR (Admissions) vide letter dated 26.08.2019 (Annexure-I). A reminder was also sent to the Controller of Examination, JR (Eval.) and JR (Admissions) on 13.09.2019 to provide the desired information within 5 days time for further supplying the same to the applicant........ Therefore, the reply received from the concerned PIOs was sent to the applicant vide letter dated 30.09.2019 (containing 04 pages) through Registered Post bearing No.RD967070952IN ....., with intimation that some of the information is still awaited and will be provided to the applicant as soon as possible ......
3. The 1st Appeal dated 03.10.2019 of Ms Savita Dubey was also processed and it has been decided by the FAA that the appellant may be informed that the desired information has already been sent to her through Registered Post ........ Accordingly, the appellant was informed vide letter dated 16.10.2019 with intimation that the reply of query No.1 is still awaited and will be provided to her soon ........ Therefore, the reply received from the office of AR (Eval.) w.r.t. query No.1 was also sent to the appellant vide FAA letter dated 23.12.2019..........."
Lastly, the Rep. of Complainant vehemently harped on the issue of delay caused by CPIO in providing information against point 1 and prayed the Commission to initiate action against them.
Decision:
The Commission at the outset , considering the reasonable explanation given by CPIO in providing reply beyond stipulated time frame of RTI Act condones the delay with a warning to CPIO to exercise due diligence and strictly follow the timelines mandate of RTI Act while replying to RTI Applications failing which penal action shall be initiated against him under Section 20 of RTI Act in future.
Further, the Commission based upon a perusal of facts on record finds no scope of intervention with respect to information sought for at points 1 to 4 of RTI Application as the reply given by CPIO and FAA adequately suffices the information sought against these points as per the provisions of RTI Act.4
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the information sought for at points 5 to 8 of RTI Application regarding education and complaint related details of Sonali Bhardwaj pertains to her personal information disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of said person and thus stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the Complainant is drawn towards a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court 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 R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.
In view of aforesaid observation, no further action is warranted in the matter.
With regards to her grievance, the Complainant is advised to pursue the matter before appropriate forum through proper channel.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani((सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner((सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 5