Central Information Commission
Hari C. V. vs Indian Institute Of Information ... on 6 June, 2025
के ीय सचू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गगं नाथ माग,मिु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/IIIKY/A/2024/608161 +
CIC/IIIKY/A/2024/606800 +
CIC/IIIKY/A/2024/615874
Hari C V ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Indian Institute of
Information Technology
(IIIT), Kottayam, Kerala ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
Sl. No. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of
Appeal RTI CPIO's First FAA's Second
No. Application Reply Appeal Order Appeal
1. 608161 20.11.2023 09.02.2024 30.12.2023 Not on 17.02.2024
record
2. 606800 20.11.2023 07.02.2024 30.12.2023 Not on 17.02.2024
record
3. 615874 18.02.2024 15.03.2024 20.03.2024 15.04.2024 16.04.2024
Note: The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to
similar RTI Applications and same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 30.04.2025
Date of Decision: 06.06.2025
Page 1 of 25
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/IIIKY/A/2024/608161
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.11.2023 seeking information on the following points:
1. "Provide the educational qualifications of all the candidates in the rank list (which includes the position of all the candidates after the interview) of the selection of Assistant Professor Gr. I and Grade II to the Department of ECE as per the Institute Rolling Advertisement No. IIITK/01/12/2023/47 dated 31.01.2023. (Associate Professor, Asst. Professor Gr. I & Gr. II - CSE/IT/ECE).
2. Provide the previous working experiences (which includes the Name and address of the previous institute(s) and number of years of service) of all the candidates in the rank list (which includes the position of all the candidates after the interview) of the selection of Assistant Professor Gr. I and Grade II to the Department of ECE as per the Institute Rolling Advertisement No. IIITK/01/12/2023/47 dated 31.01.2023. (Associate Professor, Asst. Professor Gr. 1 & Gr. II-CSE/IT/ECE).
3. Is there any candidates in the rank list (which includes the position of all the candidates after the interview) who have worked in IIIT Kottayam previously of the selection of Assistant Professor Gr. I and Grade II to the Department of ECE as per the Institute Rolling Advertisement No. IIITK/01/12/2023/47 dated 31.01.2023. (Associate Professor, Asst. Professor Gr. I & Gr. II - CSE/IT/ECE).
Page 2 of 254. Provide the application numbers of the candidates in the rank list (which includes the position of all the candidates after the interview) who have worked in IIIT Kottayam previously of the selection of Assistant Professor Gr. I and Grade II to the Department of ECE as per the Institute Rolling Advertisement No. IIITK/01/12/2023/47 dated 31.01.2023. (Associate Professor, Asst. Professor Gr. I & Gr. II - CSE/IT/ECE).
5. Provide the name and address of the candidates in the rank list (which includes the position of all the candidates after the interview) who have worked in IIIT Kottayam previously of the selection of Assistant Professor Gr. I and Grade II to the Department of ECE as per the Institute Rolling Advertisement No. IIITK/01/12/2023/47 dated 31.01.2023. (Associate Professor, Asst. Professor Gr. I & Gr. II - CSE/IT/ECE)."
1.1. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any reply to the RTI Application, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.12.2023. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record. 1.2. Subsequently, the CPIO replied vide letter dated 09.02.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. "Personal information cannot be shared as per section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005.
2. Same as 1 above.
3. Same as 1 above.
4. Same as 1 above.
5. The provisional list of selected candidates were already published in the institute website. Name and address can't be shared as personal information cannot be shared as per section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005."
1.3. Aggrieved with the non -receipt of the desired information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 17.02.2024. Second Appeal No. CIC/IIIKY/A/2024/606800
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.11.2023 seeking information on the following points:Page 3 of 25
1. "Provide the separate marks scored by all candidates in the test and interview during the selection of Assistant Professor Gr. I and Grade II to the Department of ECE as per the Institute Rolling Advertisement No. IIITK/01/12/2023/47 dated 31.01.2023. (Associate Professor, Asst. Professor Gr. I & Gr. II-CSE/IT/ECE).
2. Provide the rank list (which includes the position of all the candidates after the interview) of the selection of Assistant Professor Gr. I and Grade II to the Department of ECE as per the Institute Rolling Advertisement No. IIITK/01/12/2023/47 dated 31.01.2023. (Associate Professor, Asst. Professor Gr. 1 & Gr. II-CSE/IT/ECE).
3. Provide the Name and Application number of all the candidates in the rank list (which includes the position of all the candidates after the interview) of the selection of Assistant Professor Gr. I and Grade II to the Department of ECE as per the Institute Rolling Advertisement No. IIITK/01/12/2023/47 dated 31.01.2023. (Associate Professor, Asst. Professor Gr. I & Gr. II-CSE/IT/ECE).
4. Provide the Name and Application number of all the candidates participated in the selection of Assistant Professor Gr. I and Grade II to the Department of ECE as per the Institute Rolling Advertisement No. IIITK/01/12/2023/47 dated 31.01.2023. (Associate Professor, Asst. Professor Gr. 1 & Gr. II-CSE/IT/ECE).
5. Provide the Name and Address of all the candidates participated in the selection of Assistant Professor Gr. I and Grade II to the Department of ECE as per the Institute Rolling Advertisement No. IIITK/01/12/2023/47 dated 31.01.2023. (Associate Professor, Asst. Professor Gr. I & Gr. II-CSE/IT/ECE)." 2.1. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any reply to the RTI Application, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.12.2023. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record. 2.2. Subsequently, the CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.02.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:
Page 4 of 251. "The marks of the individual candidate(s) is their personal data and it cannot be shared to another person (Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005). Hence, no information could be provided.
2. Please see answer to Q.No.1 above. However, the list of provisionally selected candidates were already uploaded on the Institute website for information to all.
3. Please see answer to Q.No.1 above. However, the list of provisionally selected candidates (application number) were already uploaded on the Institute website for information to all.
4. List of candidates, with their application number, attended for the written test is attached as Annexure-1. Name cannot be disclosed under relevant section of RTI Act. 2005.
5. The personal data could not be shared to another person (Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005). Hence, no information could be provided."
2.3. Aggrieved with the non -receipt of the desired information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 17.02.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/IIIKY/A/2024/615874
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"All the following questions are based on the recruitment process conducted on 07th and 8th November 2023 to the Department of ECE as per the Institute Rolling Advertisement No. IIITK/01/12/2023/47 dated 31.01.2023. (Associate Professor, Asst. Professor Gr. I & Gr. II - CSE/IT/ECE).
My application number:: IIITK-F-23-01-26358332 and IIITK-F-23-02-49796332
1. Provide the separate marks scored by me (Application Number: IIITK-F-23-01-
26358332 and IIITK-F-23-02-49796332) in the test and interview during the selection process of Assistant Professor Gr. I and Grade II to the Department of ECE.
Page 5 of 252. Only one test is conducted for both Asst. Professor Gr. I & Gr. II to the Department of ECE. I have qualified the test and called for the interview to Asst. Professor Gr. II only. Give the reasons for not called me for Assistant Professor Grade I to the Department of ECE.
3. What was the maximum marks fixed for the written test?
4. What were the different questions asked for the written test? Provide the copy of the question paper.
5. Provide the copy of my answer sheet (Application Number: IIITK-F-23-01- 26358332 and IIITK-F-23-02-49796332) of the written examination with marks awarded to each question/section.
6. What was the maximum marks fixed for interview?
7. Whether the marks received for written examination is added with the marks received for interview in a consolidated manner for fixing the rank list? If not, what were the mark splitups considered for preparing the rank list?
8. Out of the 12 candidates selected as Assistant Professor Grade II to the department of ECE (as per the information note in the institute website dated on 15th November 2023), how many candidates were worked as Adhoc in the IIIT Kottayam before?
9. How many members are there in the interview board? Did all the members present?
10. Give the name, designation, and official address of all the interview board members.
11. Was the entire interview conducted in offline?
12. Did any of the interview board members come online? If yes, how many and who were the members in online? Who were the members in offline?
13. Provide the separate marks awarded to me (Application Number: IIITK-F-23- 01-26358332 and IIITK-F-23-02-49796332) by each member in the interview Page 6 of 25 board during the selection process of Assistant Professor Grade II to the Department of ECE."
3.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 15.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:
1. Since, the Institute has to protect the candidate's personal matters accidentally sharing to a third party, you may visit the PIO of the Institute on a mutually convenient and pre-decided date and time. You may intimate your preferred dates of visit (at least 03 preferences) to the undersigned within another 14 days' time.
You will be shared with the information after ensuring the confidentiality, verification of your identity with the identity card submitted at the time of written test as well as Admit card signed by the invigilators etc. under CCTV surveillance. You can note down your marks as recorded in the minutes of selection committee where marks of other candidates will be masked.
2. Reason is not applicable under RTI Act. As per records the selection committee did not recommend any of the applicants for AP Gr I for the department of ECE.
3. It was mentioned in the Question booklet itself, the total marks were 60.
4. The syllabus for the written test was notified in the website of the Institute prior to the written test. Question paper cannot be shared as it will give undue advantage to the recipient amongst the applied candidates. As a policy matter of the Institute, it also attracts the provision of section 8(1)(d) of RTI ACT.
5. Since, Institute has to protect the candidate's personal matters accidentally sharing to a third party, you may visit the PIO of the Institute on a mutually convenient and pre-decided date and time. You may intimate your preferred dates of visit (at least 03 preferences) to the undersigned within another 14 days' time. You will be shared with the information after ensuring the confidentiality, verification of your identity with the identity card submitted at the time of written test as well as Admit card signed by the invigilators etc. under CCTV surveillance. You can note down the total marks awarded to you as marked in the answer sheet. Marks awarded to each question will be masked as it is falling under section 8(1)(j) and section 8(1)(g) of RTI ACT, related to the Invigilators.
Page 7 of 256. Weightage of 50%
7. Yes, Equal weightage was given to marks obtained in written examination and interview.
8. No such information is available as a part of the decision of the selection committee.
9. 07 - Yes
10. Personal information could not be disclosed under clause 8(1)(J) of RTI Act.
11. Yes.
12. 03 members out of the 07 joined through online. Personal information could not be disclosed under clause 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
13. Personal information could not be disclosed under clause 8(1)(j) and section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act.
3.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.03.2024. The FAA vide order dated 15.04.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
3.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 16.04.2024.
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
4. The Appellant was represented by Advocate Gens George Elavinamannil through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Malini, AR & CPIO along with Binu, AR & Deemed CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
5. The Rep. of the Appellant largely argued on the lines of the written contentions filed in each of these cases prior to the hearing, wherein the common argument was that the averred recruitment being of national importance, there ought to be complete transparency. Similarly, it was also argued that that institute only publishes the roll numbers of the selected candidates and not the rank list, in which regard they have also approached the Court challenging the selection process. Further, in Second Appeal No. Page 8 of 25 CIC/IIIKY/A/2024/615874, it was contended that the Respondent did not provide any information about the Appellant's marks as sought for, rather asked the Appellant to physically visit the institute when the marks has been asked for under the RTI Act. Moreover, the Respondent has not even provided the information about the reason as to why the Appellant was not considered for Grade-I despite qualifying the written test and this lack of transparency raises serious concerns about the fairness of the shortlisting process. In particular, some of his contentions in Second Appeal No. CIC/IIIKY/A/2024/615874 against each point of the CPIO's reply are reproduced hereunder in the form of excerpts for clarity:
"The copy of the question paper was not provided. Since the recruitment process is already over there is no justification for denying access to the paper. This refusal itself suggests there may be something to conceal. The test w.as not a conventional exam but a written presentation-based assessment. The question paper contained only six topics, and each candidate was required to prepare presentation (in written format) on any one of these six topics. It is important to note that Adhoc faculty members from the same institute also appeared for this examination. Since the format allowed candidates to respond to just one topic of their choice, any individual who was already aware of even a single topic could easily pass the exam. All the Adhoc faculty members who appeared for the test cleared it, which raises a genuine concern that they might have had prior knowledge of the question paper. This selective advantage undermines the fairness of the recruitment process and casts doubt on its transparency."
"The institute has asked me to visit the campus in person to view my answer sheet and note the marks. However, they are not ready to provide a copy of the answer sheet or detailed section-wise marks through official means. As a candidate, I have the right to receive a copy of my evaluated answer sheet under the RTI Act. I strongly suspect that the evaluation may not have been done properly, and since the written exam carries 50% weightage, it is crucial to have transparency in the marking."Page 9 of 25
"Only weightage percentages were shared; the actual maximum marks allotted for the interview were not provided."
"There is a genuine concern that the process was conducted to absorb the existing Adhoc faculty."
"Complete details of the interview panel were not shared. As per regulations, strict norms govern panel composition."
"I fail to understand how marks awarded to me by individual interview board members can be treated as someone else's personal information. These are not personal opinions or confidential data unrelated to the recruitment process--they are official assessment scores given to me in a formal, institutional setting. As a candidate, it is my legitimate right to know how each board member evaluated my performance, especially in a process that determines professional appointments. Disclosure of such information is essential to ensure the process was transparent, unbiased, and fair. Withholding this data creates an impression of opaqueness and prevents proper scrutiny of the recruitment procedure."
Lastly, reliance was placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar vs. Public Information Officer & Others, 2024 Live Law (Bom) 581, which was said to be affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Public Information officer and Registrar & Anr v. Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar & Anr, [SLP (C) No. 2783/2025, 2025 Live Law (SC) 210)
6. The Respondent reiterated the replies on record and upon being questioned about unnecessarily asking the Appellant to visit their office and inspect relevant records under CCTV surveillance, it was stated that it was meant for preserving the privacy of the appellant and if the Commission so directs, they can facilitate the information.
Page 10 of 257. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that as far as the denial of the information related to other candidates in terms of their names; addresses; educational and professional credentials; application details, marks and rank (to the exception of what was published in the public domain at a given point in time) etc. is concerned, the reply of the CPIO citing the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act cannot be faulted. The reliance placed by the Appellant on the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar vs. Public Information Officer & Others, 2024 Live Law (Bom) 581, which was said to be affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Public Information officer and Registrar & Anr v. Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar & Anr has been duly considered.
However, the bench is of the considered opinion that, it is a matter of judicial discipline and propriety to rely on the Apex Court's Constitution bench judgment 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 the following manner:
"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.Page 11 of 25
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..."
8. Now, to arrive at the aforesaid deduction, in the facts of the instant matter it is imperative to read the preface or the genesis/discussion, wherefrom the above deduction was arrived at by the Apex Court. The following contents are thus reproduced from the text of the Subhash Chandra Agarwal (supra) case for emphasis:
"40. The right to privacy though not expressly guaranteed in the Constitution of India is now recognized as a basic fundamental right vide decision of the Constitutional Bench in K.S. Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of India and Others26 holding that it is an intrinsic part of the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and recognised under several international treaties, chief among them being Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 which states that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. The judgment recognizes that everyone has a right to the protection of laws against such interference or attack.
41. In K.S.Puttaswamy (supra) the main judgment (authored by D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) has referred to provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to highlight that the right to privacy is entrenched with constitutional status in Part III of the Constitution, thus providing a touchstone on which validity of executive decisions can be assessed and validity of laws can be determined vide judicial review exercised by the courts. This observation highlights the status and importance of the right to privacy as a constitutional right. The ratio as recorded in the two concurring judgments of 26 (2017) Page 12 of 25 10 SCC 1 the learned judges (R.F. Nariman and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ.) are similar. It is observed that privacy involves a person's right to his physical body; right to informational privacy which deals with a person's mind; and the right to privacy of choice which protects an individual's autonomy over personal choices. While physical privacy enjoys constitutional recognition in Article 19(1)(d) and (e) read with Article 21, personal informational privacy is relatable to Article 21 and right to privacy of choice is enshrined in Articles 19(1)(a) to (c), 20(3), 21 and 25 of the Constitution. In the concurring opinion, there is a reference to 'The Right to Privacy' by Samuel Warren and Louis D. Brandeis on an individual's right to control the dissemination of personal information and that an individual has a right to limit access to such information/shield such information from unwarranted access. Knowledge about a person gives another power over that person, as personal data collected is capable of effecting representations in his decision making process and shaping behaviour which can have a stultifying effect on the expression of dissent which is the cornerstone of democracy. In the said concurring judgment, it has been further held that the right to protection of reputation from being unfairly harmed needs to be zealously guarded not only against falsehood but also against certain truths by observing: (Emphasis Supplied) '623. An individual has a right to protect his reputation from being unfairly harmed and such protection of reputation needs to exist not only against falsehood but also certain truths. It cannot be said that a more accurate judgment about people can be facilitated by knowing private details about their lives - people judge us badly, they judge us in haste, they judge out of context, they judge without hearing the whole story and they judge with hypocrisy. Privacy lets people protect themselves from these troublesome judgments.' xxx Page 13 of 25
43. Privacy and confidentiality encompass a bundle of rights including the right to protect identity and anonymity. Anonymity is where an individual seeks freedom from identification, even when and despite being in a public space....
xxx
46........ In the context of the RTI Act, suffice would be to say that the right to protect identity and anonymity would be identically subjected to the public interest test.
47. Clause (j) to sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act specifically refers to invasion of the right to privacy of an individual and excludes from disclosure information that would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of such individual, unless the disclosure would satisfy the larger public interest test. This clause also draws a distinction in its treatment of personal information, whereby disclosure of such information is exempted if such information has no relation to public activity or interest. We would like to, however, clarify that in their treatment of this exemption, this Court has treated the word 'information' which if disclosed would lead to invasion of privacy to mean personal information, as distinct from public information. This aspect has been dealt with in the succeeding paragraphs.
48. As per Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, the word 'personal' means 'of or affecting a person or of or constituting personal property'....
xxx
51. This test had been adopted in several English decisions including decision of the House of Lords in Campbell v. Mirror Group Newspapers Limited33 wherein Lord Hope of Craighead had further elucidated that the definition is taken from the definition of 'privacy' in the United States, where the right to privacy is invaded if the matter which is publicised is of a kind that - (a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and Page 14 of 25
(b) not of legitimate concern to the public. Law of privacy in Campbell (supra), it was observed, was not intended for the protection of the unduly sensitive and would cover matters which are offensive and objectionable to a reasonable man of ordinary sensibilities who must expect some reporting of his daily activities. The mind that has to be examined is not that of a reader in general, but that of the person who is affected by the publicising/dissemination of his information. The question is what a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities would feel if he/she is subjected to such publicity. Only when publicity is such that a reasonable person would feel justified in feeling seriously aggrieved that there would be an invasion in the right to privacy which gives rise to a cause of action.
52. In Douglas (supra), it was also held that there are different degrees of privacy which would be equally true for information given in confidentiality, and the potential for disclosure of the information to cause harm is an important factor to be taken into account in the assessment of the extent of the restriction to protect the right to privacy.
53. While clause (j) exempts disclosure of two kinds of information, as noted in paragraph 47 above, that is "personal information" with no relation to public activity or interest and "information" that is exempt from disclosure to prevent unwarranted invasion of privacy, this Court has not underscored, as will be seen below, such distinctiveness and treated personal information to be exempt from disclosure if such disclosure invades on balance the privacy rights, thereby linking the former kind of information with the latter kind. This means that information, which if disclosed could lead to an unwarranted invasion of privacy rights, would mean personal information, that is, which is not having co-relation with public information.
54. In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner and Others34, the applicant had sought copies of all memos, show-cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to a Government employee from his employer and also Page 15 of 25 details of his movable/immovable properties, details of investment, loan and borrowings from financial institutions, details of gifts accepted by the employee from his family members and relatives at the time of the marriage of his son. In this context, it was observed:
'12. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show- cause notices and orders of censure/punishment, etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.
13. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand 34 (2013) 1 SCC 212 exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.' (emphasis supplied)
55. In Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam and Another35, the applicant had sought information on parameters with regard to transfer of clerical staff with details of Page 16 of 25 individual employees, such as date of their joining, promotion earned, date of their joining the branch, the authorities who had posted the transfer letters, etc. The information sought was declared to be personal in nature, which was conditionally exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
56. In Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India and Others36, the applicant (who is also the respondent in the present appeals) had sought information relating to details of medical facilities availed by individual judges of the Supreme Court and their family members, including information relating to private treatment in India and abroad in last three years. This Court had held that the information sought by the applicant was 35 (2018) 11 SCC 426 36 (2018) 11 SCC 634 'personal' information and was protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, for disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy which prohibition would not apply where larger public interest justifies disclosure of such information.
57. In R.K. Jain v. Union of India and Another37, the applicant had sought inspection of documents relating to Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of a Member of Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) and follow up action taken by the authorities based on the ACRs. The information sought was treated as personal information, which, except in cases involving overriding public interest, could not be disclosed. It was observed that the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act in such cases has to be followed. The matter was remitted to examine the aspect of larger public interest and to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 11 of the RTI Act which, it was held, was mandatory.
58. Reference can also be made to Aditya Bandopadhyay (supra), as discussed earlier in paragraph 32, where this Court has held that while a fiduciary could not withhold information from the beneficiary in whose benefit he holds such information, he/she 37 (2013) 14 SCC 794 owed a duty to the beneficiary to not disclose the same to Page 17 of 25 anyone else. This exposition of the Court equally reconciles the right to know with the rights to privacy under clause (j) to Section 8(1) of the RTI Act."
9. The above emphasised contents take us to the question of deciding whether there is any public interest involved in the disclosure of the information sought for in the instant RTI Application(s) relating to third parties. Here, the Commission places reliance on a catena of judgments of the superior Courts on the import of "public interest" as under:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.9052 OF 2012] observed as under:
"23. The expression 'public interest' has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression 'public interest' must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression 'public interest', like 'public purpose', is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs. [State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (AIR1952 SC 252)]. It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recommendation and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)]. Emphasis Supplied "24. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision. Certain matters, particularly in relation to appointment, are required to be dealt with great confidentiality."Page 18 of 25
".... Similarly, there may be cases where the disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. All these protections have to be given their due implementation as they spring from statutory exemptions. It is not a decision simpliciter between private interest and public interest. It is a matter where a constitutional protection is available to a person with regard to the right to privacy. Thus, the public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance factor between right to privacy and right to information with the purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be served in the larger public interest, particularly when both these rights emerge from the constitutional values under the Constitution of India." Emphasis Supplied Similarly, in another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. P. Gupta v President of India, [AIR 1982 SC 149], with reference to 'public interest' it has been maintained that:
"Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, 'diffused' rights and interests vindicate public interest... [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected." Emphasis Supplied And, in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others [Appeal (Civil) 4937-4940 of 1998], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"the interest of general public (public interest) is of a wide importance covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution [i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy]". Emphasis Supplied Further, in the Subhash Chandra Agarwal (supra) case, the Apex Court had touched upon this aspect at length and some of the notable contents relevant to the instant discussion is reproduced hereunder:Page 19 of 25
"75. Public interest in access to information refers to something that is in the interest of the public welfare to know. Public welfare is widely different from what is of interest to the public. "Something which is of interest to the public" and "something which is in the public interest" are two separate and different parameters. For example, the public may be interested in private matters with which the public may have no concern and pressing need to know. However, such interest of the public in private matters would repudiate and directly traverse the protection of privacy.
The object and purpose behind the specific exemption vide clause (j) to Section 8(1) is to protect and shield oneself from unwarranted access to personal information and to protect facets like reputation, honour, etc. associated with the right to privacy. Similarly, there is a public interest in the maintenance of confidentiality in the case of private individuals and even government, an aspect we have already discussed.
76. The public interest test in the context of the RTI Act would mean reflecting upon the object and purpose behind the right to information, the right to privacy and consequences of invasion, and breach of confidentiality and possible harm and injury that would be caused to the third party, with reference to a particular information and the person. In an article 'Freedom of Information and the Public Interest: the Commonwealth experience' published in the Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal, the factors identified as favouring disclosure, those against disclosure and lastly those irrelevant for consideration of public interest have been elucidated as under:
"it is generally accepted that the public interest is not synonymous with what is of interest to the public, in the sense of satisfying public curiosity about some matter. For example, the UK Information Tribunal has drawn a distinction between 'matters which were in the interests of the public to know and matters which were merely interesting to the public (i.e. which the public would like to Page 20 of 25 know about, and which sell newspapers, but... are not relevant). Emphasis Supplied Factors identified as favouring disclosure include the public interest in: contributing to a debate on a matter of public importance; accountability of officials; openness in the expenditure of public funds, the performance by a public authority of its regulatory functions, the handling of complaints by public authorities; exposure of wrongdoing, inefficiency or unfairness; individuals being able to refute allegations made against them; enhancement of scrutiny of decision-making; and protecting against danger to public health or safety.
Factors that have been found to weigh against disclosure include: the likelihood of damage to security or international relations; the likelihood of damage to the integrity or viability of decision-making processes: the public interest in public bodies being able to perform their functions effectively; the public interest in preserving the privacy of individuals and the public interest in the preservation of confidences.
Factors irrelevant to the consideration of the public interest have also been identified. These include: that the information might be misunderstood; that the requested information in overly technical in nature; and that disclosure would result in embarrassment to the government or to officials."
10. The foregoing extrapolation of the averred Apex Court judgment read with the case laws specific to determining what constitutes larger public interest gives way to the observation that although recruitment exams/interviews by government bodies entail a public activity solely on the grounds of inviting applications and participation not of the public as a whole but of such persons of the public who fulfil certain stipulated parameters/employment/service conditions. Now, to usher in public interest in every such recruitment upon a stray case of an applicant demanding access to Page 21 of 25 information of third parties on the sole premise of apprehension of unfairness or to assess their performance vis-à-vis other candidates or alleging upon their strong belief that such other candidate should not have been selected etc. will seemingly negate the concept and advent of right to privacy and the import of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act established through the Courts over the years. Similarly, an objective and generalised view of every recruitment made by government bodies being a public activity and thus warranting disclosure of the information relating to the performance of third parties or their credentials appears to be giving way to the proposition that an appointment made through such recruitments will attain the element of a continuing public activity by which measure then every aspect of service of the third party will be warranting disclosure in public interest at some point in time.
However, the precedents discussed so far nowhere appear to be laying down any such principle and therefore, it will be prudent to consider that the findings and observation of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's judgment in the Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar matter relied upon by the Appellant has to be read on a case to case basis and the Apex Court order dated 07.02.2025 in SLP No. 2783/2025 upholding the said judgment is not a ruling that overrides the averred constitution bench judgment in the Subhash Chandra Agarwal matter. In other words, the Apex Court order of 07.02.2025 specifically upholds the order of disclosure laid down in the Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar and does not overrule the Subhash Chandra Agarwal case law.
11. And therefore, in the instant set of cases, the Commission relies on the Subhash Chandra Agarwal case law to uphold the denial of the personal information of the third parties and finds that the material on record does not ascribe larger public interest in the disclosure of the information related to the third parties in any of the contexts discussed at para 9 hereinabove.
Page 22 of 2512. Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter with respect to the replies provided by the CPIOs in Second Appeal No(s). CIC/IIIKY/A/2024/608161 + CIC/IIIKY/A/2024/606800.
13. However, in Second Appeal No. CIC/IIIKY/A/2024/615874, the Commission observes that the CPIO has far stretched their apprehensions with respect to the information sought for at points 1 & 5 of the RTI Application which sought for the Appellant's own marks etc by making the access to information conditional with arbitrarily offering the information under CCTV surveillance; demand of various documents to prove identity and masking appellant's own marks citing safety security threats. The Respondent is strictly cautioned that so much of abundant caution was grossly unwarranted and not backed by any provision of the RTI Act.
Similarly, the denial of the information on point no.13 wherein the Appellant sought for his interview marks, separately awarded or otherwise, the denial under Section 8(1)(j) & (g) of the RTI Act was appropriate only to the extent if names of the separate interview board member was part of the relevant record. However, it is not understood as to how asking of mere marks would disclose names of interview board members and the CPIO even failed to apply their mind to invoke Section 10 if such was the pressing need to withhold information.
Further, for point no.4, the CPIO has mindlessly justified the denial of the question paper by stating that disclosure will give advantage to the recipient over others. When the examination was over and the process of selection was complete, the question of giving advantage to the RTI Applicant does not arise. To put it more clearly, unless it was argued that the examination is not yet over; or it was a matter of limited question bank as with super speciality examinations etc., there being an advantage to the recipient of the question paper does not arise. Moreover, the denial citing policy matter of the institute for invoking Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act is found to be completely out of place and misconceived as Section 8(1)(d) nowhere states "policy matter" as a ground for denial. Moreover, here, the Commission is also putting stress on the averment of the Page 23 of 25 Appellant that - 'The test was not a conventional exam but a written presentation-based assessment. The question paper contained only six topics, and each candidate was required to prepare presentation (in written format) on any one of these six topics.' This leaves little to the imagination to consider any aspect of limitation that the Respondent faced or apprehends to face with the disclosure of the question paper as sought for by the Appellant.
Adverting to the foregoing observations, the CPIO is now directed to provide the information sought for at points 1, 4, 5 & 13 of the RTI Application to the Appellant and the only liberty accorded to the CPIO is to mask the names of the examiners and invigilators or third party, if any, appearing in the answer scripts & interview mark sheet/record of the Appellant; question paper etc. in line with the exemption of Section 8(1)(g) read with Section 10 of the RTI Act. The said information shall be provided free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days of the receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
14. The Appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयु ) ं /Date: 06.06.2025 िदनाक Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 24 of 25 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Indian Institute of Information Technology, Kottayam, CPIO, RTI CELL, Regd. Office:
Karoor, Valavoor P. O., Pala, Kottayam, Kerala- 686635 2 Hari C V Page 25 of 25 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)