Central Information Commission
Vikas Singh vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 26 February, 2026
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईिद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CBSED/A/2025/611330
VIKAS SINGH .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY
EDUCATION, RTI Cell, P.S.,
1-2, INDUSTRIAL AREA, I. P.
EXTENSION, PATPARGANJ,DELHI-110092 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23.02.2026
Date of Decision : 23.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30.10.2024
CPIO replied on : 11.11.2024
First appeal filed on : 15.11.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 06.12.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.10.2024 seeking the following information:
"1)SEEKING STATUS AND UPDATES ON A COMPLAINT I RAISED ON 08/09/2023 TO CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER CBSE.
2)In Ravinder Balani vs Union of India 2009 the CIC ruled that a spouse is not considered 3rd party under the RTI Act & has the right to obtain information about their spouse especially when legal proceedings are Page 1 of 6 involved.The information requested is in public interest when it involves the disclosure of identity or forgery.
SUPREME COURT LANDMARK CASE OF CBSE VS ADITYA BANDOPADHYAY 2011 RULED THAT PUBLIC AUTHORITIES MUST DISCLOSE INFORMATION THAT IS NECESSARY FOR LEGAL INVESTIGATIONS OR EVIDENCE IN A COURT OF LAW. IN ARUN KUMAR GUPTA VS CBSE 2017 CIC RULED THAT EDUCATIONAL CERTIFICATES & RECORDS ARE NOT INHERENTLY EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER THE RTI ACT WHEN SUCH INFORMATION IS NECESSARY FOR LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. SEEKING COPY OF DATE OF BIRTH, ID PROOF & SCHOOL DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE USED BY LAXMI JAYANT A/C TO TC PROVIDED BY SENIOR NAVYUG SCHOOL.
3)Dhananjay Sharma vs State of Haryana 1995 Supreme Court held that fabrication of documents to deceive courts or authorities is a criminal offense, and such forgery must be exposed, even if it involves personal documents. Aadhar card & Passport of Anjali jayant has been terminated on submitting TC of Senior Navyug School of Laxmi Jayant-DOB 22/08/89 to the Authority & in ongoing critical investigations of Forgery of School,College,Official Documents at Shahbad Dairy Police Station. In Subhash Chandra Agarwal vs Supreme Court of India 2010 held the 3rd party information can be shared if it involves public interest & relates to criminal offenses like forgery or fraud. Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs CIC 2012 held that 3rd party personal information can be disclosed if there is a larger public interest involved. In cases of forgery, fraud, or criminal misconduct, personal information can be accessed to prove innocence or as evidence in a legal matter.
SEEKING ALL DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE USED BY LAXMI JAYANT FOR TAKING ADMISSION AND USED IN NAVYUG SCHOOL RECORDS FROM 10/04/95 TO 29/04/99.
4)SEEKING RESULT & EDUCATIONAL DOCUMENTS OF LAXMI JAYANT.
5)SEEKING DOCUMENTS & FORM USED FOR ADMISSION IN VIDHYA BHAWAN SCHOOL.
6)SEEKING DETAILS & DOCUMENTS OF SCHOOLING FROM YEAR 1999 TO 2005."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 11.11.2024 stating as under:
"As per RTI section -11 (1) third party information can not be provided. Further, only generic information such as salary details can be given to spouse."Page 2 of 6
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.11.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 06.12.2024, upheld reply of the CPIO.
4. Challenging the FAA's order,Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Vikas Singh, present in person. Respondent: Dr. Ramdas Shivhare, US present in person.
5. Written statement filed by the Appellant as well as the CPIO is taken on record.
6. Hearing Bench, at the outset, pointed out that mark sheet, date of birth certificate and other related details as sought by the Appellant pertains to personal information of third party, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. To this end, the Appellant restricted his arguments to point No. 1 of RTI application in question by stating that on the said point he has sought action taken report on his own complaint which cannot be denied to him. In this regard, Appellant sought intervention of the Commission.
7. Per contra, CPIO clarified that the Applicant has sought complete and certified copies of records relating to Date of Birth, admission documents, educational certificates and status of a complaint submitted earlier. Upon receipt of the RTI request, the CBSE initiated correspondence with the concerned school for verification of relevant records. However, no response has been received from the school despite communication. Consequently, certain records are not presently available at the Board level. CPIO further explained that while Class X and Class XII examination records are maintained by the CBSE, however, admission records and primary school documentation are maintained by the respective school concerned. The Board does not hold original admission forms or foundational school records.With regard to issuance of duplicate documents of class X-XII, the CBSE has a prescribed online mechanism through its official portal for applying for duplicate mark sheets or certificates which is https://cbseit.in/cbse/web/dads/home.aspx.
Page 3 of 6CPIO sought time from the Bench to file a written statement incorporating all these facts as stated orally in the hearing. Time granted.
8. Post hearing, the Commission is in receipt of a written statement from the CPIO explaining the facts as tendered in the hearing. The same has been taken on record.
Decision:
9. Heard the parties.
10. The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the core contention raised by the Appellant in the instant appeal was denial of request by the CPIO claiming to be personal information of third-party. In response to which, the CPIO claimed that the Appellant has sought mark sheet, date of birth certificate and other related information of third party , disclosure of which invade the privacy of the person concerned, hence, the request for information was denied to the Appellant as the same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
11. As regards point No. 1 to 6 (except point No. 1) of RTI application under reference, the Commission arrives at a conclusion that on all points of RTI application the CPIO has adequately discharged his onus justifying for denial of information in terms of Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act. The denial is in line with the judgment of of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. (SLP (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012) decided on 03.10.2012
12. Further, in matters concerning the disputes of a husband and wife, the Commission is guided by a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Vijay Prakash vs. Union of India (W.P. (C) 803/2009) dated 01.07.2009 wherein the Court observed that in private disputes such as the present one between a husband and wife "...The basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption (from disclosure) enacted under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be lifted or disturbed.."
13. Now, coming to point No. 1 of RTI application, the denial of request for action taken report on Appellant's complaint is not appropriate in terms of the RTI Act, 2005. Appellant being complainant has every right to know the outcome of his complaint as is held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the in Page 4 of 6 the matter of Kamal Bhasin v. Radha Krishna Mathur and Ors., W.P.(C) 7218/2016 dated 01.11.2017 wherein it was observed:
"6. In the present case, the petitioner stands as a relator party as he is also one of the complainants. The petitioner is not seeking any personal information regarding respondent No. 3, but merely seeks to know the outcome of the complaint made by him and other such complaints. The PFC Officers Association had pointed out certain conduct which according to them was irregular and warranted disciplinary action; thus, they would be certainly entitled to know as to how their complaints have been treated and the results thereof.
7. Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act reads as under:- "8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,- xxxxxxxxx (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Central Information Commission appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
8. It is apparent from the plain reading of the aforesaid clause that in order to claim exemption from disclosure of any information, the essential conditions that must be satisfied are: (i) that it is personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest; or
(b) that it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. However, even if the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority may disclose the information if they are satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
9. The proviso of Section 8 (1) of the Act is also important and reads as under: "Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person."
10. By virtue of the aforesaid proviso to Section 8(1) of the Act, it is enacted that information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. In the present case, it was doubtful whether information as to the fate of the complaints can be considered as personal information that has no relationship with public Page 5 of 6 interest or public activity. The activity of the Central Vigilance Department includes investigation and taking action in cases of corruption. Secondly, the complaint related to the allegations of misconduct and how these complaints were treated were clearly matter of public interest.
11 In the circumstances, this Court directs the respondent to disclose to the petitioner as to what action had been taken pursuant to his complaint and other similar complaints made against the then CMD. The petitioner would not be entitled to any notings and deliberations of the Group of Officers or Disciplinary Authority but only information as to what action was taken in relation to the complaints in question."
14. In view of the above, the Second Appeal is partly allowed. The CPIO is directed to inform the Appellant the status of action taken on his complaint in response to point No. 1of the RTI application as on date of RTI application and its present status. If the said complaint has already been disposed of, then the broad outcome should be provided to the Appellant, within twoweeks from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
With these observations and directions, the instant Appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लग ं ी) Information Commissioner (सू चनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri VIKAS SINGH Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)