Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Raghav Kumar vs National Institute Of Fashion ... on 17 February, 2026

                            के ीय सूचना आयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                         बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                      Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                       नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं      ा /Second Appeal No.      CIC/NIFTY/A/2024/647902



Raghav Kumar                                             ....अपीलकता/Appellant

                                    VERSUS
                                     बनाम

CPIO,
National Institute of Fashion Technology
Bhopal                                              ... ितवादीगण /Respondents

Date of Hearing                    : 03/02/2026
Date of Decision                   : 03/02/2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :                   Ashutosh Chaturvedi

Relevant facts emerging from Second Appeal/Complaint:

 RTI application filed on                 28/07/2024
 CPIO replied on                          28/08/2024
 First appeal filed on                    15/09/2024
 FAA's order dated                        25/09/2024
 Second Appeal dated                      30/10/2024

Information sought

:

The appellant has filed RTI application dated 28/07/2024 seeking the following information:-

"1. All the documents submitted in pursuit of admission:

 Residence certificate/Domicile Certificate  Caste certificate  Application filled for the admission  Income certificate Second Appeal/ Complaint No. - CIC/NIFTY/A/2024/647902 Page 1 of 4  Or any other document submitted

2. All the documents submitted to take advantage of any grant/scholarship offered by the college of any kind.

3. Details of any kind of grant provided to the candidate."

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 28/08/2024 stating as under:

"Ans.-1: The information sought for is of a third party, and the consent of the third party was asked for. It is to inform that the third party (student) has not given her consent, and accordingly, the information cannot be provided, in accordance with the clause of the RTI Act, 2005.

Ans.-2: Same as answer to Q. 1.

Ans.-3: Same as answer to Q. 1."

3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant, filed a First Appeal dated 15/09/2024. The FAA vide its order dated 25/09/2024, held as under:-

"In light of the above facts it has emerged that the decision cited by the appellant applies to application for a job in a public office and subsequent selection process and not to admission process in an academic institution.

The documents submitted by the student to National Institute of Fashion Technology Bhopal are held by the Institute in a fiduciary capacity. The documents sought by the appellant contains personal information of the student like name, parents' names, address, telephone number, e-mail ID, medical condition etc. This personal information of Ms. Shruti Kumari has no relationship to any public activity or interest and would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, hence is barred from disclosure in terms of Section 8(1)

(e) and Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005. This has also been held by the Central Information Commission earlier in decision CIC/DIRED/A/2018/145555 dated 09.06.2020.

The mere fact that the "caste certificate is issued by the state government authorities, which is a government institution" does not make it the third party for this particular case since the information contained therein relates to Ms. Shruti Kumari.

The CPIO is advised to apply specific provisions of the RTI Act while responding to the RTI request.

The Appeal is disallowed and accordingly disposed off."

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission by filing instant Second appeal on 30/10/2024.

Written Submission of the Appellant dated 03.02.2026 is taken on record.

5. Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent Respondent: Arnav Sen, CPIO, Assistant Professor NIFT Bhopal participated in the hearing on VC.

DECISION Keeping in view the facts of the case, the material on record and the submissions made during hearing, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent.

In view of the aforementioned factual and legal position, no further intervention of the commission is warranted. The Appeal stands disposed of.

Sd/-

Ashutosh Chaturvedi (आशुतोष चतुवदी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/ Date: 03.02.2026 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Ram Singh Meena (राम िसंह मीना) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011- 26715467 Address of the Parties:

1. PIO National Institute of Fashion Technology, NIFT Complex, Bhopal-Bypass Road Bhopal 462 030 Second Appeal/ Complaint No. - CIC/NIFTY/A/2024/647902 Page 3 of 4

2. Raghav Kumar Second Appeal/ Complaint No. - CIC/NIFTY/A/2024/647902 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)