Central Information Commission
J Kaja Hameedhullah vs National Council Of Educational ... on 29 November, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/NSERT/A/2023/630702
J. Kaja Hameedhullah ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
National Council of Educational Research ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
and Training (NCERT)
New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 13.03.2023 FA : 07.04.2023 SA : 22.06.2023
CPIO : 14.03.2023 FAO : 02.05.2023 Hearing : 26.11.2024
Date of Decision: 29.11.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.03.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Any RTI application received by NCERT vide Reg No. NSERT/R/E/20/00324 dated 03.09.2020?
(ii) the information asked by the applicant?
(iii) the answer given by the authority
(iv) the name of the authority to provided the information for the applicant and date?
(v) the name of the applicant?
Page 1 of 4
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 14.03.2023 denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.04.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 02.05.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 22.06.2023.
5. The appellant remained present through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Prof. Sunita Head-DESM, Mr. Girish Devgade-SO and Mr. Rameshwar Dayal-
Assistant attended the hearing in Person.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the information has been wrongly denied by the Respondent authority.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought by the Appellant is regarding the RTI Application filed by a third-person, hence barred to be provided as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that an appropriate reply has been provided by the Respondent. The Commission notes that the Appellant has sought for the personal information of a third party, which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the parties is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 Page 2 of 4 R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"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 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..."
In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission finds no scope of relief to be ordered in the matter. With this observation, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 29.11.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi-110016 Page 3 of 4
2. J. Kaja Hameedhullah Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)