Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Raj Kapoor vs Central Council For Research In ... on 5 February, 2026

                            के ीय सूचना आयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                         बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                      Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                       नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं      ा /Second Appeal No.      CIC/CFRAS/A/2024/136384



RAJ KAPOOR                                         ....अपीलकता/Appellant

                                   VERSUS
                                    बनाम

CPIO,
Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences
New Delhi                                    ... ितवादीगण /Respondents

Date of Hearing                   : 03/02/2026
Date of Decision                  : 03/02/2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :                   Ashutosh Chaturvedi

Relevant facts emerging from Second Appeal/Complaint:

 RTI application filed on                 24/05/2024
 CPIO replied on                          19/06/2024
 First appeal filed on                    25/07/2024
 FAA's order dated                        27/08/2024
 Second Appeal dated                      07/11/2024

Information sought

:

The appellant has filed RTI application dated 24/05/2024 seeking the following information:-

"a. Please provide the Designation of Ms. Sonali Sharma W/o Sh. Aditya Vats D/o Sh. Devender Kumar Sharma, (Hindi Translator) and her promotion history.

b. Please provide the date of joining of Ms. Sonali Sharma.

c. Please provide the last six month Salary Slip Ms. Sonali Sharma.

d. Please provide the details of residential address since the joining till date.

e. Please provide the medical history, medical bills, total expenses claimed by Ms. Sonali Sharma for her Medical expenses.

f. Please provide the details of disciplinary actions (if any) against Ms. Sonali Sharma.

g. Please provide the details of Medical Leaves, earned leaves, unearned leaves etc. h. Please provide the details that whether Ms. Sonali Sharma ever took permission for taking loan or whether she has informed department for any other income sources other then salary."

2.The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 19/06/2024 stating as under:

"With reference to your RTI application dated 24/05/2024 which has been transferred to this institute u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005 vide Council's letter No. 1-1/2024-CCRAS/RTI/2747/1490 dated 11 June 2024, it is informed that information sought at point no.3 of RTI cannot be provided under section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005 i.e. information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest."

3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant, filed a First Appeal dated 25/07/2024. The FAA vide its order dated 27/08/2024, held as under:-

"1. The Appellant vide his online RTI application dated 24.5.2024 in which he has sought information regarding Ms. Sonali Sharma, Hindi Translator, CARI, New Delhi, and the said RTI application has been transferred to Council's peripheral Institute i.e. CARI, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, vide Council's letter dated 11.6.2024.

2. The reply has been furnished by the Director(Institute), CARI, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, to the applicant vide their letter dated 19.06.2024.

3. Not satisfied with the reply furnished, he has preferred an RTI FIRST APPEAL dated 25.7.2024.

4. The RTI First Appeal has been considered by the undersigned as First Appellate Authority and it is informed that the reply dated 19.06.2024 furnished by the Director(Institute), CARI, New Delhi, is reiterated. With this information, the Appeal is disposed off."

4.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission by filing instant Second appeal on 07/11/2024.

Further, Written Submission dated 28.01.2026 of the Respondent is on record.

3. Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent Respondent: Dr. Hemanta Panigrahi, Research Officer CRAI ,Renu Ranjan, Administrative Officer(Estt.)/CPIO, CCRAS, Rakesh Kumar, Consultant (Rectt.) CCRAS, and Mukesh Kumar, Assistant participated in the hearing in person. The Appellant has not availed the opportunity to appear before the Commission to plead his case. The Respondent reiterated the facts of the case and submitted that information sought pertains to third party and the same is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act.

DECISION In the light of the facts of the case, the material on record and the submission made during hearing it is observed that the information sought by the appellant is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. In view of this, Commission finds it pivotal to highlight a landmark judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein aspect of "personal information" has been explained in a highly structured manner. In this regard, ratio laid down 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. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:

"...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 proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family Second Appeal/ Complaint No. - CIC/CFRAS/A/2024/136384 Page 3 of 4 members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."

[Emphasis Supplied] Adverting to the supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case has categorized a variety of aspects that comes under the purview of "personal information" which are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Considering the fact that CPIO has appropriately denied the information under the RTI Act, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

Ashutosh Chaturvedi (आशुतोष चतुवदी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/ Date: 03.02.2026 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Ram Singh Meena (राम िसंह मीना) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011- 26715467 Address of the Parties:

1.CPIO Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Science, 61-65, Institutional Area, Opp. D Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi - 110058

2. RAJ KAPOOR Second Appeal/ Complaint No. - CIC/CFRAS/A/2024/136384 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)