Central Information Commission
Shivalinga vs Forensic Science Laboratory on 11 November, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/FOSCL/A/2024/113262
Shivalinga .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Forensic Science Laboratory
Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi - 110085 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04.11.2025
Date of Decision : 10.11.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03.10.2023
CPIO replied on : 16.11.2023
First appeal filed on : 20.11.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 01.03.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 30.04.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 03.10.2023 seeking the following information:
"On 27/07/2023 served letter to Delhi FS: dept. about Shivashankar death (17/07/2019) postmortem reports but your dept. still not replied. So kindly arrange Shivashankar postmortem reports by New Delhi Central Forensic Science Laboratory."Page 1 of 4
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 16.11.2023 stating as under:
"As per the information provided, FSL No. is not traceable in the Main Case Section records of FSL. Please provide the FSL No. so that information shall be provided."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.11.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 01.03.2024, held as under.
"On perusal of the appeal and during the hearing, PIO has informed that a reply dated 16.11.2023 has been sent, but the appellant has mentioned in his RTI appeal that the reply which he has received does not contain the replies to his required information sought through RTI application. On going through the file, it seems that the notices dated 24.01.2024 and 21.02.2024 for appearance on 05.02.2024 and 27.02.2024 respectively. sent through speed post have been delivered to the appellant.
In view of the above, it is apparent that the appellant has failed to appear before the First Appellate Authority on the sufficient opportunities provided to him and P.I.O has already given the reply dated 16.11.2023. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present along with his brother Shri Shambhu Lingayia - through video-conference.
Respondent: Sr. Puneet Puri, Assistant Director/PIO, FSL and Dr. S.K. Paux, SSO- participated in the hearing.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/ Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 30.04.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirms non-service.
6. The Appellant inter alia submitted that the relevant information has not been provided by the PIO till date.
Page 2 of 47. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the Appellant has not provided any specific FSL number, in the absence of which, it not possible to trace the information as sought by the Appellant.
8. The Commission interjected and asked the Appellant to establish larger public interest in disclosing the post-mortem report of the third-party namely Shri Shivashankar and Appellant's locus in seeking personal information of third party, he failed to provide any cogent reply.
Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the information sought in the instant RTI Application is third party's personal information and the disclosure of which is exempted under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission notes that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010, has held as under:
"59...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....."Page 3 of 4
10. The above ratio is applicable to this case as well. Further, the Appellant has failed to establish any larger public interest and his locus in seeking personal information of third party. It is also noted that, despite being specifically advised by the CPIO vide letter dated 16.11.2023 to furnish the relevant FSL number for proper identification and processing of the requested information, the Appellant did not comply with the said requirement.
11. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the Commission finds no ground for its intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Forensic Science Laboratory Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi - 110085 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)