Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Shibil O vs Airports Authority Of India on 4 December, 2025

                                      के ीय सूचना आयोग
                              Central Information Commission
                                   बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                               Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                 नई िद   ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं        ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/AAOIN/A/2024/650880

 Shibil O.                                                       ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                         VERSUS
                                          बनाम
 CPIO:
 Airport Authority of India,                                ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
 Chennai

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 16.08.2024                FA      : 10.09.2024            SA     : Nil

 CPIO : 06.09.2024               FAO : 07.10.2024                Hearing : 12.11.2025


Date of Decision:03.12.2025
                                         CORAM:
                                   Hon'ble Commissioner
                                 _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                        ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:

Query regarding recruitment Sr/01/2023, Post Code-03 Senior Assistant Electronics

1) Kindly share the Roll No, Category, Length of service & Marks scored by ESM candidates.

2) Kindly share the Roll No, Category & Marks scored by all candidates.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 06.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

1: It relates to personal information, the disclosure which has no relationship to any public activity or interest as per section 8(1)(j) of RTI ACT, 2005 which is exempted.

2: Please visit official website www.aai.aero under the tab "careers" for marks scored by all Candidates.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.09.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 07.10.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.

5. The appellant appeared through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Muralidhar, GM (HR) & CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that he sought information on roll number, category, length of service and marks scored by ESM candidates in an examination conducted by the respondent and the same was not provided to him. The appellant further submitted that since he did not ask for age, address of the candidates, the sought information in point no.1 cannot be denied by the respondent.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the sought information on roll number, category, length of service and marks scored by ESM candidates is exempted U/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The respondent further submitted that no public activity is involved that warrants the disclosure of the information sought. Written submission dated 10.11.2025 filed by the respondent is taken on record.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that that the respondent gave an appropriate reply to the appellant for all the points vide reply dated 06.09.2024. The Commission finds that the respondent rightly denied the sought information in point no.1 U/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Page 2 of 6 Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 wherein the importance of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:

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

9. Further, on the aspect of larger public interest, the Commission places reliance on a catena of judgments of the superior Courts on the import of "public interest" as under:

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.9052 OF 2012] observed as under:

"23. The expression 'public interest' has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression 'public interest' must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to Page 3 of 6 justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression 'public interest', like 'public purpose', is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs. [State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (AIR 1952 SC 252)]. It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recommendation and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)]. Emphasis Supplied "24. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision. Certain matters, particularly in relation to appointment, are required to be dealt with great confidentiality."

".... Similarly, there may be cases where the disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. All these protections have to be given their due implementation as they spring from statutory exemptions. It is not a decision simpliciter between private interest and public interest. It is a matter where a constitutional protection is available to a person with regard to the right to privacy. Thus, the public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance factor between right to privacy and right to information with the purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be served in the larger public interest, particularly when both these rights emerge from the constitutional values under the Constitution of India." Emphasis Supplied Similarly, in another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. P. Gupta v President of India, [AIR 1982 SC 149], with reference to 'public interest' it has been maintained that:

"Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, 'diffused' rights and interests vindicate public interest... [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected." Emphasis Supplied And, in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others [Appeal (Civil) 4937-4940 of 1998], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:

"the interest of general public (public interest) is of a wide importance covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution [i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy]". Emphasis Supplied

10. Since there is no material on record to ascribe larger public interest in the disclosure of the information related to the third party in any of the above-referred contexts, the Commission finds no reason to order for any relief in the matter. Therefore, no further intervention of the Commission is required. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 03.12.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO Airport Authority of India, CPIO, RTI Cell, Regional Head Quarters, Southern Region, Page 5 of 6 Meenambakkam, Chennai Airport, Chennai-600027

2. Shibil O. Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)