Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Jai Dev vs Central Council For Research In ... on 22 March, 2023

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                             केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                       नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

 नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/CFRAS/A/2022/625751

 Jai Dev                                             .....अपीलकताग /Appellant

                                    VERSUS/बनाम


 Public Information Officer Under RTI,
 Assistant Director-(Co-Ordination),
 Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic
 Sciences (Ministry of AYUSH),
 Jawahar Lal Nehru Bhartiya Chikitsa Evam
 Homeopathy Anusandhan Bhawan,
 No.-61-65, Institutional Area, Opp. D-Block,
 Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.

                                                        ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

  RTI application filed on          :   08.02.2022
  CPIO replied on                   :   09.03.2022
  First appeal filed on             :   09.03.2022
  First Appellate Authority order   :   06.05.2022
  Second Appeal received at CIC     :   09.05.2022
  Date of Hearing                   :   22.03.2023
  Date of Decision                  :   22.03.2023


                   सूचना आयुक्त   : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
            Information Commissioner:    Shri Heeralal Samariya



  Information sought

:

The Appellant sought information:

• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 09.03.2022, as under:

• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 09.03.2022.

• The FAA vide order dated 06.05.2022 held as under:

• Written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 20.03.20023 as under :

Grounds for Second Appeal:

The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present: -

Appellant: Absent Page 3 of 5 Respondent: Mr. A.K. Meena, ADO, CCRAS The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that information sought by the Appellant would cause unwarranted invasion of personal information of third party and same is exempted under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. Furthermore, candidates could see only their own question paper and response and score card at the link provided and not of other candidates. In addition, the final result has been published after obtaining opinion of experts on the discrepancies alleged by the Appellant. Moreover, information related to the Appellant has already been furnished to the him.

Decision:

At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their written submission along with annexures, dated 20.03.2023, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.

Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appellant has sought information pertaining to marks and response sheets of other candidates, which qualifies as a third-party information and same is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further no larger public interest has been invoked by the Appellant. In view of this, Commission finds it pivotal to highlight a landmark judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein aspect of "personal information" has been explained in a highly structured manner. In this regard, ratio laid down 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. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:

"...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. 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 Page 4 of 5 available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."

[Emphasis Supplied] Adverting to the supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case has categorized a variety of aspects that comes under the purview of "personal information" which are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Commission taking into account the facts of the referred case deny the request of Appellant for disclosure of the information and upholds the submission of the PIO. No further action lies.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy.

(अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 5 of 5