Central Information Commission
Vignesh C. K. vs Indian Institute Of Science, Bangalore on 28 January, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/IISBL/A/2024/657970
Vignesh C. K. .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Institute of Science,
RTI Cell, Bangalore, Karnataka
PIN- 560 012 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21.01.2026
Date of Decision : 21.01.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.11.2024
CPIO replied on : N.A.
First appeal filed on : 09.12.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 19.12.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 30.12.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.11.2024 seeking the following information:
"Please refer to the attachment - thesis submitted by Dr. Krishnaprakas CK in 2001, from IISc.
Kindly provide copies of the following:
1. All academic transcripts/certificates of Dr. Krishnaprakas PhD
2. Any appreciation/honours received Page 1 of 4
3. Any recommendation/appreciations received."
2. CPIO's reply is not available on record.
3. Aggrieved by no decision from the CPIO, Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.12.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 19.12.2024, held as under:-
"This order is issued to dispose of the appeal no. IISBL/A/E/24/00031 submitted under the RTI Act by Mr. C K Vignesh and received in the office of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 09.12.2024. The RTI application: IISBL/R/E/24/00377 dated 20/11/2024, seeking various documents regarding the thesis submitted by Dr. Krishnaprakas for the PhD degree in 2001 in IISc, for which the CPIO had rejected the RTI application under Section 8(1)(j) stating that the information sought is personal in nature, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
In the Appeal the appellant has prayed to furnish the information requested vide RTI application IISBL/R/E/24/00377 stating that the applicant is the son of Dr. C K Krishnapakas, also uploading the ID proof stating the same. FAA agrees with the reply furnished by the CPIO rejecting the RTI application under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI act, 2005. The ID proof stating the father's name of the RTI applicant is being furnished in the appeal stage , does not form part of his original RTI application. Therefore, the undersigned is not in a position to allow the disclosure of the information which had not even been sought by the appellant in his RTI application. An information seeker cannot be allowed to expand the scope of his RTI enquiry at appeal stage. Even otherwise, no disclosure can be directed to be made in the present appeal of the Appellant as the information is explicitly barred under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI act-2005. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of as above."
4. Challenging the aforesaid order of the FAA dated 19.12.2024, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent.Page 2 of 4
Respondent: Represented by Shri Jayaraj K, Assistant Registrar (on behalf of Shri Vasanthan A A, CPIO) along with Shri Hari Krishnan, Admn. Asst. present through video conference.
5. Written statement of the CPIO is taken on record.
6. CPIO's representative relied on the written statement and stated that the Appellant's in his original RTI application sought information of third-party professor without disclosing any larger public interest per se. Therefore, his request was denied initially under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. At the First Appeal stage, the Appellant expanded his request by claiming himself to be the son of the deceased third-party of which he sought information; however, no supportive documents were produced by him to substantiate his claim except a copy of Driving License details of which could have been filled by the Appellant himself. Accordingly, the FAA upheld the denial of request under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and it was advised to the Appellant to file fresh RTI application with proper facts.
Decision:
7. The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the core contention raised by the Appellant in the instant appeal was denial of request by the CPIO under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. In response to which, the CPIO through his written statement has adequately discharged his onus for denial of information in terms of Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act, 2005.
8. In this regard, the Commission arrives at the conclusion that suitable reply has been made available by the CPIO via the latest written statement which is taken on record. Moreover, the Bench also cannot lose sight of the fact that in the absence of details or supporting documents of the Appellant claiming to be the son of third-party, the denial of request by the CPIO under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 is justified.
9. In light of above and because Appellant neither appeared during hearing nor filed any written submission to controvert the version of the CPIO, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter, at this juncture. Submissions of the CPIO being in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, are upheld.
Page 3 of 410. The Appellant is at liberty to file fresh RTI application with proper clarifications and supportive documents such as legal heirship certificate to get the requested information.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi (सुधा रानी रे लग ं ी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri Vignesh C K Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)