Central Information Commission
Mrsameer Saxena vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 29 October, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
CIC/AD/C/2013/001563SA
Complainant : Sameer Saxena
Respondent : Education Dept., GNCTD
Date of hearing : 29.10.2014
Date of decision : 30.10.2014
Information Commissioner : Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu
(Madabhushi Sridhar)
Referred Sections : Section 18 of the
RTI Act
Result : Complaint allowed/
Disposed of
Heard on 29.10.14. Complainant present. Respondent is represented by Shri Atul Bisht.
2. Complainant filed an RTI application dt.9.5.12 with the Principal, Kulachi Hansraj Model School seeking six point information regarding his son Master Shaurya Saxena. Appellant and his wife are entangled in marital dispute and litigation. The Principal claimed in his reply dated 26.5.2012 that his school was not public authority and because the complainant was in litigation with his wife Ms. Pooja Saxena and the case being subjudice, further action in the matter could be taken only after instructions from the court and no further correspondence would be entertained. The Principal also returned the postal order and other documents enclosed along with the RTI application. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Complainant approached the Commission vide his complaint dt.8.8.12.
3. During the hearing, the complainant submitted that he and his wife are living separately and his son was in the custody of his wife and he wants the information to know whether his name is included in the admission card of his son. He also wanted the progress report of his son to know how he is studying.
4. The Commission on perusal of the documents produced by the Respondent observed that the complainant's wife, Ms Pooja Saxena had objected to disclosure of information pertaining to her son to the complainant on the grounds of safety and security of the child. The Commission also observed that in the admission card, the name of the father has been left blank and in the column 'name of the mother' it was shown as Pooja Saxena. Ms. Pooja Saxena has indicated that she was a single parent, divorce pending. With regard to furnishing of photocopy of school identity card, the Respondent submitted that it is with the child and mother, thus he cannot give it.
5. The complainant, in fact, is entitled to know the progress of the child and also to know whether his name was included in the application of the child. But that alone will not entitle him as a citizen under Right to Information Act, to procure the certified copies of entire admission record, identification card of child, address etc, which could be totally privy to the mother and child in her custody. As a parent he also has a right to visit his child and to know the progress, but because the couple are in litigation, such a right has to be ascertained by the court of law and enforced according to arrangement reached out between them as per the orders of the court. To that extent the principal's reply was appropriate. The record brought by Principal reflect that mother of the child submitted birth certificate contaning the name of father, she retained the family suffix of 'Saxena' to her and child's names. This information would serve the purpose of the complainant. The address of the child cannot be given to the appellant though he is the father, because Section 8 (1)(g) as apprehended by the mother of the child. Complainant was asking the information that belonged to third party (child and mother). The School Authority properly sought the permission of the mother of the child. Regarding information about the parentteacher meeting, the complainant need to obtain the visiting rights and permission from the court of law in view of the apprehensions raised by the mother of the child. Such information also could be barred by Section 8(1)(g), ie., personal security of the child. All the rights of complaint as husband or father need to be ascertained in pending litigation and the RTI is not appropriate mechanism for him to pursue. Complainant also sought the copy of Progress Report of the child, which is general in nature. Progress reports or register of marks of school children is kept generally by the school, and this is not prohibited by any provision of law. The parental interest about child's progress being natural, could be part of 'public interest'. Hence, the Commission in this case considers that no harm would cause if the copy of progress report is given, that being not private information.
6. The Commission after hearing both sides and on the basis of the representation made by the school authority does not find any need to look into the question of whether the school is a public authority or not. As to the furnishing of copy of progress report of Master Shaurya Saxena, the representative of the school agreed that the same will be furnished to the complainant within 3 weeks.
7. In view of the above, the Complaint is closed at the Commissions end.
Sd/ (M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Dy. Registrar