Central Information Commission
Dheeraj Kumar Singh vs Indian Institute Of Technology Jodhpur on 30 April, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: Four Matters.
(1) CIC/IITMD/A/2025/634151
(2) CIC/IITJP/A/2025/634132
(3) CIC/IITGO/A/2025/634131
(4) CIC/IITKP/A/2025/636407
Dheeraj Kumar Singh .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. The CPIO
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
MADRAS, RTI CELL, IIT P.O., CHENNAI,
TAMILNADU-600036
2. The CPIO
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
JODHPUR, RTI CELL, NH-65,
NAGAUR ROAD, KARWAR,
DISTT-JODHPUR, RAJASTHAN-342037
3. The CPIO
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GOA,
RTI CELL, GOA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CAMPUS,
FARMAGUDI, PONDA, GOA- 403401
4. The CPIO
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KANPUR,
RTI CELL, POST OFFICE-I. I. T., KANPUR,
UP-208016 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15.04.2026
Date of Decision : 15.04.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Page 1 of 19
The above-mentioned Second Appeals have been clubbed together for
disposal through common order as the parties are common and the
information sought by the Appellant are identical in nature.
(1) CIC/IITMD/A/2025/634151
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.05.2025
CPIO replied on : 30.06.2025
First appeal filed on : 02.07.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 17.07.2025
2nd Appeal dated : Nil
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2025 before the CPIO, IIT, Chennai (Respondent No. 1 herein) seeking the following information:
"Please provide the name, age, gender, caste/category, academic program (BT/MT/PhD/etc.), native state, date of suicide, college name, location of death (whether inside campus or outside) of all students or scholars or research staff who died by suicide (unnatural death) since 1st January 2005 till date in IIT Madras. This information is required for academic research purpose hence kindly do not deny the information or hide any information. Name can be withheld if required."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 30.06.2025 stating as under:
"Since this relates to personal information of deceased students it is, exempted from disclosure in terms of section 8(1)(j) of RTI ACT 2005.
Year No. of Death 2019 3 2020 0 2021 0 2022 1 2023 3 2024 0 2025(26/06/2025) 0
Further, it is clarified that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record."Page 2 of 19
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.07.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 17.07.2025, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
4. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(2) CIC/IITJP/A/2025/634132 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30.05.2025 CPIO replied on : 17.06.2025 First appeal filed on : 18.06.2025 First Appellate Authority's order : 16.07.2025 2nd Appeal dated : Nil Information sought:
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.05.2025 before the CPIO, IIT, Jodhpur seeking the following information:
"Please provide the name, age, gender, caste/category, academic program (BT/MT/PhD/etc.), native state, date of suicide, college name, location of death (whether inside campus or outside) of all students or scholars or research staff who died by suicide (unnatural death) since 1st January 2005 till date in all the 23 IITs. This information is required for academic research purpose hence kindly do not deny the information or hide any information. Name can be withheld if required."
6. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 17.06.2025 stating as under:
"Number of students, scholars or research staff who died by suicide in IIT Jodhpur during the specified period is NIL.
The other information asked is therefore Not Applicable."
7. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.06.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 16.07.2025, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
8. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 3 of 19(3) CIC/IITGO/A/2025/634131 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.05.2025 CPIO replied on : 27.06.2025 First appeal filed on : 03.07.2025 First Appellate Authority's order : 15.07.2025 2nd Appeal dated : Nil Information sought:
9. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2025 seeking the following information:
"Please provide the name, age, gender, caste/category, academic program (BT/MT/PhD/etc.), native state, date of suicide, college name, location of death (whether inside campus or outside) of all students or scholars or research staff who died by suicide (unnatural death) since 1st January 2024 till date in IIT Goa. This information is required for academic research purpose hence kindly do not deny the information or hide any information. Name can be withheld if required."
10. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 27.06.2025 stating as under:
"The Information sought is a Third Party Information, such information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005."
11. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.07.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 15.07.2025, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
12. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(4) CIC/IITKP/A/2025/636407 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30.05.2025
CPIO replied on : 23.06.2025
First appeal filed on : 02.07.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 23.07.2025
2nd Appeal dated : Nil
Page 4 of 19
Information sought:
13. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.05.2025 seeking the following information:
"Please provide the name, age, gender, caste/category, academic program (BT/MT/PhD/etc.), native state, date of suicide, college name, location of death (whether inside campus or outside) of all students or scholars or research staff who died by suicide (unnatural death) since 1st January 2005 till date in all the 23 IITs. This information is required for academic research purpose hence kindly do not deny the information or hide any information. Name can be withheld if required."
14. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.06.2025 stating as under:
"Reference is invited to your 02 online RTI application bearing Registration number IITKP/R/E/25/00182 dated 29.05.2025 and another RTI application bearing Registration number IITKP/R/T/25/00083 dated 30.05.2025 respectively seeking identical information, which has been received in the office of the CPIO on 30.05.2025 and 02.06.2025 respectively.
In this regard, as per the information received from the concerned department pertaining to IIT Kanpur, point wise reply to your queries is appended below: -
Year No. of cases Year No. of cases
2005 01 2014 01
2006 02 2018 01
2007 01 2022 01
2008 02 2023 01
2009 01 2024 03
2010 01 2025 01
2011 01
As per available records since from 2005 to till date, details are as under:
Further, the details of other students are personal information of an individual. The disclosure of the same has no relationship to any larger public activity or interest. Hence, the same cannot be revealed under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005."Page 5 of 19
15. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.07.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 23.07.2025, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
16. 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 Dheeraj Kumar Singh present through video conference. Respondent No. 1: Ms. Rashmi Uday Kumar, CPIO, IIT, Chennai present through video conference.
Respondent No. 2: Shri Baikunth Nath Sahu, AR/CPIO, IIT, Jodhpur present through video conference.
Respondent No. 3: Shri Abhishek Gupta, CPIO, IIT, Goa present through video conference.
Respondent No. 4: Shri Prakalp Sharma, DR (Legal)/CPIO, IIT, Kanpur present through video conference.
17. Written statements filed by the CPIOs individually in their respective matters are taken on record.
18. Appellant while narrating the genesis of instant Second Appeals stated that he being one of the Alumni of IIT, Kanpur (B. Tech. 2004 batch) is running an NGO for rehabilitating and mental counselling of the students to guide them for not taking any negative step to end up their life due to study pressure or otherwise. In order to analyse the root cause of suicidal deaths gender wise, caste wise, etc. the Appellant filed instant RTI applications, however, he expressed his dissatisfaction to the fact that age, caste was redacted by the CPIO and FAA while responding to his RTI application. It was the plea of the Appellant that such information is crucial to strength their programme for upliftment/counselling of mental health of students who underwent tremendous pressure, however, it was being withheld by the Respondents. Hence, these Second Appeals before the Commission seeking directions against the CPIOs concerned to provide information regarding the age and category of such students.
Page 6 of 1919. File No. CIC/IITMD/A/2025/634151 - Ms. Rashmi, CPIO, IIT, Chennai placing reliance on her written statement that information about the number of death of students since 2019 has been provided to the Appellant in the initial stage itself barring the name, age, caste and other related information, which are sensitive in nature. Disclosure of such information would intrude the privacy of such deceased persons and their families and hence, information of such nature is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
20. File No. CIC/IITJP/A/2025/634132 - Shri Baikuntha Nath Sahu, CPIO, IIT, Jodhpur stated that there is NIL data regarding number of students, scholars, or staffs who died by suicide in IIT, Jodhpur and this fact has already been informed to the Appellant in response to the RTI application, hence, there is no question of disclosure of name, age, caste, etc., as such.
21. File No. CIC/IITGO/A/2025/634131 - Shri Abhishek Gupta, CPIO, IIT Goa that information about the number of death of students since 2019 has been provided to the Appellant in the initial stage itself barring the name, age, caste and other related information, which are sensitive in nature. Disclosure of which will apparently invade the privacy of such deceased person and their family and hence, information of such nature is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. On the suggestion of the Commission, CPIO agreed to file a revised written statement in the lines of submission tendered orally during hearing.
22. Post hearing, Shri Abhsihek Gupta, CPIO, IIT, Goa filed a revised written statement dated 15.04.2026 (copy marked to the Appellant), which is taken on record.
23. File No. CIC/IITKP/A/2025/636407 - Shri Prakalp Sharma, DR (Legal)/CPIO, IIT, Kanpur invited attention of the Commission towards the contents of their written submission and stated that information about the number of cases of students/scholars dies by suicide with their date of death, gender and native state has been provided to the Appellant. However, the name of deceased, their age and caste cannot be provided as it pertains to personal information of third-party and their families, disclosure of which attracts applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. In support of his contentions, CPIO gave reference of various case laws which are taken on record. In response to Appellant's submissions, the CPIO apprised the Bench that name and other details of the deceased even otherwise can be obtained Page 7 of 19 by the Appellant through media platform as such information are reflected through news channel/print media, therefore, recourse of RTI channel is not advisable as such. CPIO added that IIT, Kanpur also provide various platforms through different mode in their campus for imparting counselling of mental education to their students, scholars, staffs, etc. Furthermore, if the Appellant being in the capacity of Alumni of IIT, Kanpur, he may enter into a Non- Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with the IIT, Kanpur seeking such information as sought through RTI application which is otherwise exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. On the directions of the Bench, the CPIO agreed to file a revised written statement before the Commission giving the entire facts in black & white with a copy marked to the Appellant.
24. Post hearing, Shri Prakalp, CPIO, IIT, Goa filed a revised written statement dated 16.04.2026, which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for the ease of reference -
1.That the present revised submission is filed in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Commissioner during its hearing dated 15.04.2026 in respect of notice No. CIC/IITKP/A/2025/636407 dated 17.03.2026 issued by this Hon'ble Commission in the instant Second Appeal.
2. That the Appellant, vide RTI application dated 30.05.2025, sought detailed information pertaining to individuals (students/scholars/research staff) who allegedly died by suicide from 01.01.2005 till date, including personally identifiable particulars such as name, age, gender, caste/category, academic programme, native state, date and place of death.
3. That in this regard, as per the available records, information regarding the number of suicide cases that occurred from 2005 to date was provided to the Appellant vide CPIO letter No. PIO/109 & 115-2025-26/IITK/185 dated 23.06.2025. A copy of the RTI reply dated 23.06.2025 is attached herewith and marked as Annexure-A. Further, the remaining information sought was personal in nature, disclosure of which bears no nexus to any public activity or public interest, and would result in unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individuals concerned and their families. The same has, therefore, been rightly denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
4. That, being aggrieved from the aforementioned decision of the CPIO, the Appellant preferred a First Appeal dated 02.07.2025 before the First Appellate Authority of the Respondent public authority, requesting that the information sought was required for academic research purposes. A copy of the First Appeal is attached herewith and marked as Annexure-B. Page 8 of 19
1. That the First Appellate Authority vide its order No. IITK/RTI/AA/2025/35 dated 23.07.2025 disposed of the appeal and further disclosed the Gender, Programme, date of Suicide, Home/Native State, and Suicide location of such deceased students to the Appellant. A copy of the same is attached herewith and marked as Annexure-C. 6. That, being aggrieved from the order of the First Appellate Authority, the Appellant has preferred the present Second Appeal before this Hon'ble Commission, alleging that the Institute denied the required information. 7. That the queries raised in the present Second Appeal have already been duly replied to by this Institute. The information relating to suicidal deaths of individuals is personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and is protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In support thereof, the Respondent relies upon the following judgements:
(i) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) Vs. Union of India, WP (C) No. 494/2012 dated 26.09.2018, where it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that: "446 (m).......... It stands established without any pale of doubt that privacy has now been treated as part of fundamental right. The court has held that. in no uncertain terms, that privacy has always been a natural right which given an individual freedom to exercise control over his or her personality. The judgment further a first three aspects of fundamental right to privacy namely: i. Intrusion with an individual's physical body. ii. Information privacy and iii. Privacy of choice. " verbatim Accordingly, the Hon'ble summarised that privacy, including informational privacy, is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The present request directly intrudes upon informational privacy relating to highly sensitive circumstances of death, caste, and age of deceased students, and therefore cannot be disclosed.
(ii) Hon'ble Central Information Commission vide its judgment No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001086 dated 06.04.2011, in the matter of Chetan Kothari Vs. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, where it has been observed that "Disclosure of information regarding the suicide of a family member and the consequent discussion in the public about such death has the potential to cause severe invasion of the privacy of the family, let alone causing disrespect to the dead.
Therefore, we find nothing wrong in the decision of the CPIO in not disclosing the information." Accordingly, the disclosure of information regarding the suicide of a family member has the potential to cause severe invasion of the privacy of the family, apart from causing disrespect to the deceased.
(iii) Hon'ble Central Information Commission had concurred vide its judgment No. CIC/DS/A/2011/004488/RM dated 01.02.2013, in a similar matter of Page 9 of 19 Sanjiva Vs. IIT Kanpur, and further, the Commission directed the Institute to provide only the number of students who had committed suicide and expressly held that personal information need not be provided.
(iv) Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a leading case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner held that personal information, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest, would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. Similarly, in Canara Bank Vs. In C.S. Shyam, it was held that personal information cannot be disclosed unless a larger public interest justifies it. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Naresh Trehan Vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta also held that personal information, including medical records, cannot be disclosed in the absence of an overriding public interest.
8. That this Hon'ble Commission itself has given paramount consideration to the right to privacy in the matter of Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui Vs. CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs, Second Appeal No. CIC/MHO/A/2018/107018, decided on 29.11.2019 by a Full Bench comprising Hon'ble CIC Shri Sudhir Bhargava, Hon'ble IC Shri Bimal Julka, and Hon'ble IC Shri Suresh Chandra. In that matter, the Full Bench expressly held that the Right to Privacy is a facet of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that for any disclosure overriding such right, three conditions must be satisfied: (i) there must be a legal object; (ii) there must be a legal framework; and (iii) there must be a nexus between the objective to be achieved and the privacy to be compromised. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. A copy of the said order is placed on record as Annexure-D.
9. Place 9.1. No Larger Public Interest is Involved, Comprehensive Institutional Measures Already in It is submitted that the Respondent Institute has already disclosed aggregate/anonymised data as to the number of suicide incidents, and the First Appellate Authority has further disclosed gender, academic programme, date of death, native state, and location, information which sufficiently serves any legitimate purpose of policy review or systemic analysis. The Appellant's persistence in seeking the names, ages, and caste/categories of deceased students serves no additional public interest and, at best, would enable the identification of specific individuals, thereby defeating anonymity and violating their constitutional right to privacy. 9.2. It is well-settled that a clear legal distinction exists between anonymised aggregate data (disclosable) and identifiable personal data (protected). Even where names are withheld, the combination of attributes sought, caste/category, age, programme, state, and date of death would enable direct or indirect re-identification of individuals. This is precisely the mischief that Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is Page 10 of 19 designed to prevent, and the Respondent has struck the correct legal balance between transparency and privacy.
9.3. Further, and most significantly, the Respondent Institute has proactively implemented a comprehensive suite of measures to promote student mental health and well-being. The disclosure of personally identifiable information cannot add any meaningful value to what the Institute has already done or continues to do. These measures, which collectively demonstrate institutional responsibility and good faith, are set out below:
A. Enhanced Mental Health Services: The Institute has expanded its counselling services, now offering services from trained professionals, including psychologists and psychiatrists. A team of 9 dedicated professional student counsellors is available 24×7 and can be reached via call or email. A 24×7 helpline has been established for students in crisis, providing immediate support. Anonymous online support is also available. The Centre for Mental Health & Wellbeing (CMHW) functions as the nodal institutional mechanism, and around 2,530 counselling sessions were conducted between January and June 2025, while 3,332 sessions were conducted between July 2025 and January 2026, reflecting a consistent rise in utilisation, improved accessibility, and growing student confidence.
B. Identification and Management of Vulnerable Students: The Institute follows a structured, multi-source mechanism for identifying students in distress, receiving information from faculty members, security personnel, medical professionals, as well as fellow students and peers. Outreach is ordinarily ensured within 12 to 24 hours of receipt of information. In cases assessed as emergent, immediate intervention is undertaken, which may include medical referral, hospitalisation, and/or intimation to family members. During the last six months, more than 800 students have received structured psychological or counselling assistance through these mechanisms. C. Hello Dost & Tele-MANAS Telephonic Counselling: The Institute has subscribed to Hello Dost telephonic counselling services, providing students and staff with round- the-clock access to confidential mental health support. Additionally, the Institute has enrolled in the Tele MANAS national tele-mental health programme, further expanding access to professional psychological support, particularly for students who may be reluctant to seek in-person help.
D. Awareness, Education and Gatekeeper Training: Regular workshops and seminars on mental health, focusing on stress management, resilience, and coping strategies, are conducted. The Gatekeeper Training Programme for suicide prevention has been in place since 2021, run by experts from the Suicide Prevention of India Foundation (SPIF) for students, faculty, and Institute units, including hostel committees, HEC members, and mess in-charges.Page 11 of 19
E. Faculty Advisors and Peer Support Networks: The Institute has appointed one faculty advisor for every 30 undergraduate students, playing a vital role in hand- holding students to tackle stress and promote education-life balance. Peer mentoring programmes enable senior students to support juniors. Psychiatry and de-addiction clinics are facilitated biweekly at the IITK Health Centre in collaboration with empanelled psychiatrists.
F. Academic Flexibility and Support: In line with the National Education Policy 2020, the Institute has introduced an exit degree option for students. For newly admitted PhD students, the Institute has implemented a policy of non-termination based on academic performance in the first semester. An English Language Cell has been established to support students from diverse linguistic backgrounds, and travel support for conferences and seminars has been enhanced. G. Family Engagement and Orientation: Sessions with parents are conducted during orientation by the Director, Dean of Academic Affairs, Dean of Students' Affairs, Head of Counselling Services, and mental health professionals, to sensitise families about the potential hurdles faced by students and to encourage open communication.
9.4. In light of the foregoing, the disclosure of caste, age, and names of deceased students would serve no incremental public interest beyond what has already been disclosed or what the Institute's comprehensive institutional measures address. The Respondent respectfully submits that the Appellant has failed to demonstrate any specific, legitimate public interest that would justify the infringement of the constitutional right to privacy of deceased students and their families. Moreover, whenever media reports are published about such incidents in various newspapers, the identities, including their names, caste/categories, and age, of such victims can be retrieved by combining these metrics (by reverse engineering), if supplied in totality, against RTI applications, even when the names of the victims are kept anonymised. In such a case, it would be nothing but an encroachment on the privacy of such victims and their families. 10. Conduct of the Appellant: RTI Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked for Extraneous Purposes in Absence of Bona Fides 10.1. It is most respectfully submitted that the conduct of the Appellant, in the present matter, does not inspire confidence as to the bona fides of the instant RTI application. The conduct of the Appellant, when viewed in the totality of facts and circumstances, raises legitimate concerns as to whether the present RTI application has been filed for a bona fide public purpose, or whether it forms part of a broader set of advocacy-driven activities undertaken by the Appellant. 10.2. At the outset, it is a settled principle of law that the Right to Information Act, 2005, is a beneficial legislation intended to promote transparency and accountability in public authorities, and cannot be permitted to be invoked as a mechanism for Page 12 of 19 pursuing collateral or extraneous purposes, particularly where such invocation may result in infringement of the privacy rights of third parties. 10.3. The Appellant, Shri Dheeraj Kumar Singh, as stated, is an IIT Kanpur alumnus (2004 batch) and the self-described Founder of the "Global IIT Alumni Support Group". A perusal of material available in the public domain indicates that the Appellant has been actively engaging with media platforms on issues relating to student suicides in IITs, as reflected in the following reports:
(a) Hindustan Times (April 2026): The Appellant is quoted calling for direct accountability at the highest level and seeking to hold the IIT Kanpur administration responsible for the alleged "serious state of mental health", relying upon data stated to have been compiled by his own Support Group;
(b) Times of India (April 2026): The Appellant is quoted as stating that IIT Kanpur accounts for approximately 30% of IIT suicides over a recent period and has called for leadership-level intervention;
(c) The Mooknayak (January 2026): The Appellant is reported to have submitted a formal representation to the UGC, explicitly stated to be "based on RTI-derived data and publicly reported incidents", thereby evidencing the use of RTI-derived information for institutional representations and policy advocacy; Reference URL:
https://en.themooknayak.com/education/iit-alumni-leader-urges-ugc-to strengthen- mental-health-guidelines-amid-40-student-suicides-since-2023-framework (d) India Today (January 2026): The Appellant is reported to have raised concerns regarding suicide statistics at IIT Kanpur based on data attributed to his Support Group's activities. Reference URL: https://www.indiatoday.in/education- today/featurephilia/story/iit-mental health-crisis-kanpurs-student-suicide-numbers- raise-serious-questions-2857655-2026-01-26 10.4. A cumulative reading of the aforesaid reports indicates that the Appellant is engaged in a systematic exercise of collecting, compiling, and disseminating data relating to such incidents, including through RTI applications and other sources, and thereafter placing such data in the public domain through media interactions and institutional representations.
10.5. In this backdrop, the nature and scope of the present RTI application, seeking granular, sensitive, and potentially identifiable personal information, reasonably indicate that the RTI mechanism is being invoked as part of a broader data aggregation exercise, rather than for a limited and bona fide informational purpose within the framework of the Act.
10.6. It is respectfully submitted that even if such activities are stated to be in public interest or undertaken without pecuniary consideration, the same cannot, by itself, be Page 13 of 19 regarded as establishing bona fide intent, particularly when the information sought pertains to deeply personal and sensitive matters, including caste, mental health, and circumstances of death, the disclosure of which is otherwise protected under law. 10.7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. CIC & Ors.
(2013) 1 SCC 212, has held that the nature of the information sought, along with the surrounding circumstances, is a relevant consideration in determining whether disclosure would serve a larger public interest. In the present case, no such overriding public interest is evident so as to justify disclosure of sensitive personal data. 10.8. It is further submitted that in legitimate academic or research contexts, access to such sensitive personal data is ordinarily governed by well-defined legal safeguards, including anonymisation protocols, such as a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), ethical approvals, and confidentiality obligations. The Appellant has neither demonstrated the existence of any such safeguards nor indicated any framework to ensure the responsible handling of the information sought. 10.9. On the contrary, the material on record indicates that data relating to such incidents has been actively placed in the public domain through media platforms, which gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that any further disclosure, if permitted, may result in dissemination of information in a manner that could lead to identification or re-identification of individuals, thereby causing unwarranted intrusion into the privacy and dignity of the deceased individuals and their families. 10.10. In view of the above, and in the absence of any demonstrable and overriding public interest, it is respectfully submitted that the present application constitutes an improper invocation of the RTI jurisdiction, and does not warrant disclosure of protected personal information. The copies of the aforementioned media reports are attached herewith and marked as Annexure-E.
11. Protection under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 11.1. It is expedient to bring to the attention of this Hon'ble Commission that sensitive personal data of students, including data relating to mental health conditions, maintained in digitized/electronic format by the Institute, is governed by the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act). The DPDP Act imposes a statutory duty upon data fiduciaries (such as the Institute) to process personal data only for specified, lawful purposes, with consent, and to ensure that disclosure of personal data does not occur except in accordance with law. The data of deceased students relating to cause of death, caste, and other sensitive attributes, which are retained in electronic records, constitute 'personal data' within the meaning of the DPDP Act, 2023, and their disclosure without lawful authority would amount to a violation of the said Act.
Page 14 of 1911.2. Further, and without prejudice to the above, the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, imposes specific confidentiality obligations in respect of information relating to the mental health of individuals. Section 23 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 expressly provides that every person with mental illness has the right to confidentiality in respect of his/her mental health, mental healthcare, treatment, and physical healthcare. This protection extends to information regarding circumstances of death that are connected to mental health conditions, and the same cannot be compelled to be disclosed under the RTI Act without violating the statutory mandate of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
11.3. The Respondent respectfully submits that the right to privacy is a fundamental right as authoritatively declared in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) Vs. Union of India, and its statutory manifestations in the DPDP Act and the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, collectively create an impenetrable shield around the sensitive personal information of deceased students and their families. No 'public interest', as pleaded by the Appellant, can override constitutional and statutory protections of this nature, especially when the Institute has already disclosed adequate aggregate information and has demonstrated extensive, good-faith institutional efforts to address the very concerns that the Appellant purports to raise.
12. Additional Recent Judicial Developments Strengthening Privacy Jurisprudence 12.1. It is respectfully submitted that recent judicial pronouncements and contemporary developments in law have consistently reinforced the primacy of informational privacy, particularly in the context of disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005. The evolving jurisprudence reflects a clear position that personal and sensitive information cannot be disclosed in the absence of a demonstrable and overriding public interest, and that the right to privacy under Article 21 must be harmoniously balanced with, and, in appropriate cases, prevail over, the statutory right to information.
12.2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in recent pronouncements, reaffirmed that personal data cannot be disclosed merely upon invocation of public interest, and that any such disclosure must satisfy the constitutional tests laid down in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. Hon'ble Court stated further that the Public interest is not a blanket ground for disclosure; informational privacy, being a facet of Article 21, can only be curtailed upon satisfaction of legality, necessity, and proportionality. 12.3. It is further pertinent that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, presently examining the interplay between RTI and privacy under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, has recognised that the issue involves competing constitutional rights, requiring a careful balance between transparency and privacy, thereby reaffirming that privacy is not subordinate to RTI.
Page 15 of 1912.4. The Hon'ble Central Information Commission, in Second Appeal No. CIC/CCITP/A/2024/626922 in Manda Siddharth Tamgadge v. Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, held that personal information of third parties is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) in the absence of demonstrable larger public interest. It held that the disclosure cannot be compelled merely on request; personal records remain protected, and privacy prevails unless a clear and overriding public interest is established.
12.5. The Hon'ble High Court (Delhi), in Vipin Kumar Tyagi v. Central Vigilance Commission, held that information relating to third-party proceedings constitutes personal information and is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j). The Court emphasised protection of individual privacy in sensitive matters and cautioned against misuse of RTI for intrusive or repetitive requests. 12.6. It is also relevant that the enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 has further strengthened the protection of personal data, thereby reinforcing the scope of exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The statutory framework now places greater emphasis on safeguarding personal data, thereby limiting disclosure unless supported by a strong and demonstrable public interest. 12.7. In light of the above judicial and legislative developments, it is respectfully submitted that the information sought in the present case, being personal, sensitive, and capable of identification, squarely falls within the protected domain of informational privacy and does not meet the threshold of overriding public interest required for disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005."
Decision:
25. Heard the parties at length.
26. The Commission after adverting to facts and circumstances of the instant Second Appeals and perusal of records observe that the core contention raised by the Appellant is non-receipt of age and caste/category of the students, scholars or staffs died by committing suicide in the IIT Institute.
In response to which, it was explained by the CPIOs that number of deceased, date of incident of death, place of death, their gender, native place was informed to the Appellant after redacting the names, age and their caste which amounting to personal information of third-party and is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
27. Further, the issue flagged by the Appellant regarding request for information is meant to analyse the root cause of death and to impart Page 16 of 19 counselling to the students through their NGO, accordingly. During the hearing proceedings in the Second Appeal, the Commission has directed the CPIO to file a written statement bringing justification for denial of request of the Appellant. In compliance to which, the CPIO, IIT, Kanpur has filed a suitably revised written statement dated 16.04.2026 to discharge onus for denial of information under Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act, 2005, contents of which are reproduced herein in para 24 of this order and not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
28. The Commission finds that the elaborative response of the CPIOs and the reply of CPIO, IIT, Kanpur is self-explanatory. In light of the above, no relief can be granted in the matters. It is relevant to mention here that with the introduction of Section 44 (3) of the Digital Protection and Data Privacy Act, 2023 which came into force w.e.f 14.11.2025 which establishes that Public Authority no longer requires to justify withholding personal data by weighing public interest against privacy.
29. However, considering the facts brought on record about the suicides in IIT campuses and noticing the persistent crisis about occurrence of multiple suicides annually across various campuses, with high concentration at specific locations like IIT Kanpur and IIT Kharagpur, compelling truth that here is a dire need for the Universities to constitute high level committee, if not yet constituted, which can recommend steps for mitigating the factors contributing to the students suicides whilst pursuing their studies in IITs and information related to constitution of such Committee be also put for upfront disclosure through official website, to the public as permissible under the RTI Act, 2005. This action finds tone in the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled Kishan Chand Jain v. UOI & Ors. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 990 of 2021 to may it easy for a layperson to get relevant information through website.
30. Hence, the Commission deems it expedient, as per Section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005, for recommending the Respondent Public Authority giving effect to the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act as recently directed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled Kishan Chand Jain v. UOI & Ors. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 990 of 2021 for facilitating the requisite information regarding constitution of averred Committee and its related information through website. This step will also relieve the Public Authority of the burden of RTI Applications.
Page 17 of 1931. A copy of this order is marked to the concerned Vice Chancellor (s) of IIT, Chennai, IIT, Jodhpur, IIT, Kanpur and IIT, Goa for considering the recommendations of the Commission given at para 30 above, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this RTI Act, 2005 by taking effective steps for its implementation and for promoting conformity, accordingly. A compliance report of the recommendation be filed before the Commission through CPIO within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
32. Further, Shri Prakalp Sharma, CPIO, IIT Kanpur is directed to serve a copy of their written statement to the Appellant, free of cost within two days from the date of receipt of this order and a proof of service be uploaded before the Commission thereafter.
The Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लग ं ी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Copy to:
The Vice Chancellor, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, MADRAS, RTI CELL, IIT P.O., CHENNAI, TAMILNADU-600036 Copy to:
The Vice Chancellor, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, JODHPUR, RTI CELL, NH-65, NAGAUR ROAD, KARWAR, DISTT-JODHPUR, RAJASTHAN-342037 Copy to:Page 18 of 19
The Vice Chancellor, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GOA, RTI CELL, GOA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CAMPUS, FARMAGUDI, PONDA, GOA- 403401 Copy to:
The Vice Chancellor, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KANPUR, RTI CELL, POST OFFICE-I. I. T., KANPUR, UP-208016 Shri Dheeraj Kumar Singh Page 19 of 19 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)