Central Information Commission
Hareeshvaran Vetrivelan vs Department Of Science & Technology on 3 February, 2026
CIC/MSTCH/A/2025/619114
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MSTCH/A/2025/619114
Hareeshvaran Vetrivelan ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: M/o. Science &
Technology, New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 23.03.2025 FA : 07.04.2025 SA : 11.04.2025
CPIO : Nil. FAO : Not on record Hearing : 02.02.2026
Date of Decision: 02.02.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.03.2025 seeking information on the following points:
1. List of students nominated by New Bharath Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Thiruvarur, Tamil Nadu for INSPIRE Award MANAK scheme for academic years 2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25.
2. Project titles, reference numbers, and academic year details of all projects submitted by the school for these years. This information is required to verify suspected misuse of my project by the school administration without my consent.Page 1 of 4
CIC/MSTCH/A/2025/619114 I have already contacted INSPIRE Award division by email but have not received a reply. This information will be used only for grievance and legal purposes.
Please provide the requested details at the earliest. Thank you.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated Nil. and the same is reproduced as under :-
Kindly note that
1. The list of students nominated by the New Bharath Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Thiruvarur, Tamil Nadu for INSPIRE-MANAK Scheme for the years 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 are as follows:
Year Student Name....
2. The Project Titles, reference numbers of the projects submitted by the school for these years cannot be shared as this pertains to 3rd party information and kindly note that 3rd Party information cannot be provided as per the norms of RTI Act 2005.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.04.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
4. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 11.04.2025.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Dr. Sucheta De Mondal, Scientist D, Dr. Sandeep Bansal, Scientist D - participated in the hearing.
5. The Respondent inter alia submitted that the names of students nominated under the Inspire Manak Scheme has been provided to the Appellant. As regards the titles of Page 2 of 4 CIC/MSTCH/A/2025/619114 projects the same relates to innovative ideas of the students are any disclosure of such information would infringe the privacy of the students and also the intellectual property rights. Accordingly, the information sought is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. They averred that project title of finally selected students ia already available in the public domain on their website.
Decision:
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing and perusal of records, observes that the main premise of instant Second Appeal is non-
furnishing of complete information by the PIO. Commission observes that the Appellant had sought list of students nominated by New Bharath Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Thiruvarur, for Inspire Manak Scheme along with their project title and reference. It is noted that the list of students has been already provided to the Appellant. As regards the project titles of the students, the PIO has rightly invoked Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(d) of the RTI and justified the same during hearing. It is worthwhile to mention that as submitted by the PIO during hearing the complete details of the finally approved/selected students along with their project titles under Inspire Manak Scheme are available in public domain.
7. Since the response of the PIO is found appropriate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in this case, under the RTI Act. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26107048 Page 3 of 4 CIC/MSTCH/A/2025/619114 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Nodal Officer-(RTI Section), Department of Science & Technology (M/o. Science & Technology), Technology Bhawan, New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi-110016.
2 Hareeshvaran Vetrivelan Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)