Central Information Commission
Babita Goyal vs University Of Delhi on 25 February, 2026
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईिद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: 3 Cases.
(1) CIC/UODEL/A/2025/104768,
(2) CIC/UODEL/A/2025/121557, and
(3) CIC/UODEL/A/2025/120989
BABITA GOYAL .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI, RTI CELL,
DELHI -110007 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.02.2026
Date of Decision : 18.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Note- The above-mentioned Second Appeals have been clubbed together for
disposal through common order as the parties are common and it is based on
similar RTI application.
(1) CIC/UODEL/A/2025/104768
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08.08.2024
CPIO replied on : 10.09.2024
First appeal filed on : 17.09.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 16.10.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09.01.2025
Information sought:
Page 1 of 141. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.08.2024 seeking the following information:-
"a. Date, agenda and minutes of the respective DRC meetings wherein Prof. Babita Goyal was assigned as a Ph.D. scholar and Prof. Alka Sabharwal was assigned as a co-supervisor for Ms. Gargi Singh.
b. Joining reports signed by Prof. Babita Goyal and Prof. Alka Sabharwal.
c. Date, agenda and minutes of the DRC meeting in which new supervisors were assigned to Ms. Gargi Singh in place of Prof. Babita Goyal and Prof. Alka Sabharwal.
d. List of members present during each of the aforementioned DRC meetings.
e. Circumstances which led to change of old supervisors in case of Ms. Gargi Singh.
f. Communication seeking any acceptance/ NOC from old supervisors for appointing new supervisors in their place, in the case of Ms. Gargi Singh.
g. Record of trail of communication sent to the old supervisors for affecting the change of supervisors in case of Ms. Gargi Singh alongwith mode of communication.
h. Detail of communication received from the old supervisors marking their protest in making change of supervisor in the case of Ms. Gargi Singh. Also provide the action taken report on said communication."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 10.09.2024 stating as under:-
"(a).(c).(d).(f)&(g). Input provided by the Head (Department of Statistics) contains individual information of students, which is treated as personal information of the students concerned, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Disclosure of such personal information is exempt under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Further, the information provided by the deemed PIO also divulges identities of DRC and BRS members, which cannot be disclosed as per section 8(1)(g) of the Act as disclosure of the information would disclose the identity of the officials concerned, which would endanger their physical safety.
Therefore, the information is being provided after severance of personal Page 2 of 14 information as per section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(g) read with section 10 of the Act.
(b). (h).(i)&(j). Input as provided by the Head (Department of Statistics) is enclosed in this regard."
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.09.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 16.10.2024, stated as under:-
"On perusal of the records, it has been noticed that the CPIO has responded to the OA vide decision dated 10.09.2024 on the basis of the input received from the concerned deemed PIO in this matter.
However, the CPIO is directed to revisit the OA vis-à-vis the first appeal and decide the matter point wise, as per relevant provisions of the Act, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this Order."
4. In compliance of FAA's order, the CPIO furnished a revised reply to the Appellant on 5.11.2024 stating as under-
(a). In a meeting of DRC held on 20.02.2024, Prof. Babita Goyal and Prof. Alka Sabharwal were assigned as a supervisor and co-supervisor to the candidate under reference. Further, a copy of the agenda is enclosed herwith.
(b). It has been informed by the Head (Department of Statistics) that Joining Report of the Ph.D candidate is signed only by the candidate.
(c). In a meeting of BRS held on 21.02.2024, registration of the candidate under reference was approved. Further, a copy of the agenda is enclosed herwith.
(d). In a meeting of DRC held on 20.03.2024, new supervisors were assigned to the candidate under reference. Further, a copy of the agenda is enclosed herwith.
(e). Relevant input as provided by the Head (Department of Statistics) is enclosed in this regard.
(f). In a meeting of BRS held on 18.04.2024, change of supervisors to the candidate under reference was approved. Further, a copy of the agenda is enclosed herwith.
(g). Supervisor/co-supervisor and advisory committee were re-assigned as per the student's plea which was deliberated upon in the meeting of DRC held on 20.02.2024.
It has been informed by the Head (Department of Statistics) that Ordinance VI of the Ordinances of the University does not mention provision of NOС. (h).
Page 3 of 14(i). It has been informed by the Head (Department of Statistics) that communication in such cases is done by the Competent Authority and not at department level.
(j). It has been informed by the Head (Department of Statistics) that old supervisor is herself the applicant who would have all communication which are sought here.
Further, the applicant may inspect the relevant files/documents, which can be disclosed under various provisions of section 8(1) of the Act, at a mutually convenient date and time with the Head (Department of Statistics) on telephone no. 011-27666671/011-27666810 on or before 28.11.2024."
(2) CIC/UODEL/A/2025/121557 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09.01.2025 CPIO replied on : 10.02.2025 First appeal filed on : 07.03.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 08.04.2025 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.06.2025 Information sought:
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.01.2025 seeking the following information:-
"a. Eligibility conditions and the procedure to enroll a student for Ph.D. b. List of candidates enrolled in past 10 years through written examination.
c. List of candidates enrolled in past 10 years through written examination and interview.
d. List of candidates enrolled in past 10 years through interview only. e. Criteria for allowing a student for change of field for the purposes of doing Ph.D., apart from one in which originally the student was enrolled for doing Ph.D..
f. Rules/ procedure to be followed to facilitate such change of field for a Ph.D. student.
g. List of students allowed to change their respective fields in past ten years, citing the reasons for change, original fields alongwith changed fields, names of old and new supervisors. A. Rules specifying the procedure followed to reassign supervisors to such a candidate i. The procedure followed to reassign supervisors in case of change of field for past ten years."Page 4 of 14
6. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 10.02.2025 stating as under:-
"(a)(f)&(h). Pursuant to input from the Head (Department of Statistics) indicates that the applicant may refer to University's Ordinance VI, which outlines Ph.D. rules and regulations. A copy of the Ordinance is enclosed.
The Ordinance and its amendments are accessible on the University's website, www.du.ac.in under the head 'Research' 'Research Ordinances and Gazette Notifications' and under the head 'Important Links' - 'Office Orders/Circulars/Guidelines' - 'Rules, Policies and Ordinances" "Act, Statutes and Ordinances.
(6)(1) Input from the Head (Department of Statistics) is enclosed in this regard.
(c)&(d). Input from the deemed PIO indicates that the applicant may visit the department's website, www.statistics.du.ac.in in this regard.
(e)&(i). Input from the Head (Department of Statistics) is enclosed for your information. However, the matter is being further pursued with the Head (Department of Statistics)."
7. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.03.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 08.04.2025, stated as under:-
"On perusal of the records, it has been noticed that the CPIO has responded to the OA vide decision dated 10.02.2025 followed by a letter dated 24.03.2025 on the basis of the input received from the concerned deemed PIOs in this matter.
However, the CPIO is directed to revisit the OA vis-à-vis the first appeal and decide the matter point wise based on available information as per relevant provisions of the Act within three weeks from the date of receipt of this Order."
8. In compliance of FAA's order, the CPIO furnished a revised reply to the Appellant on 06.05.2025, stating as under:
"In compliance with the decision of the First Appellate Authority dated 08.04.2025, it is informed that the appellant has filed several applications under the RTI Act where the requests for information hovers around Ph.D. research related matters while identifying herself as a faculty member of Ramjas College.Page 5 of 14
The present original application under the Act is a series of questionnaire for which information received from the concerned deemed PIOs have already been provided to the appellant. Further, being a faculty member and a research guide of the Department of Statistics, she is already in possession of such information requested in this original application. In this regard, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhya dated 09.08.2011 are particularly relevant in this regard, wherein it has been categorically mentioned that the nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. This principle is squarely applicable to the instant case. In this particular matter, it is informed that the matter was referred to Dean (Admissions), Head (Department of Statistics), Assistant Registrar (Academic) and Statitical Officer (Planning Unit), the concerned deemed PIOs as per section 5(4) & 5(5) of the Act. point wise information is as follows:
a)&(h). Pursuant to input from the Head (Department of Statistics), Assistant Registrar (Academic) and Incharge (Admissions) indicates that the applicant may refer to University's Ordinance VI, which outlines Ph.D. rules and regulations. A copy of the Ordinance is enclosed. The Ordinance and its amendments are accessible on the University's website, www.du.ac.in under the head 'Research' 'Research Ordinances and Gazette Notifications' and under the head 'Important Links' 'Act, Statutes and Ordinances'.
Orders/Circulars/Guidelines' 'Rules, Policies and Ordinances' Further, the applicant may refer to Bulletin of Information for admission to Ph.D. course available at Office weblink,-- file:///C:/Users/HP/Downloads/BOI PhD Admission 2024-25 pdf'
(b). Input from the Head (Department of Statistics) is enclosed in this regard.
(c)&(d).
Input from the deemed PIO indicates that the applicant may visit the department's website, www.statistics.du.ac.in in this regard.वे बसाइट / website: www.du.ac.in
(e)&(i).
Input from the Head (Department of Statistics) indicates that the department follows the Ph.D Ordinance guideslines. Proposals are discussed by the DRC and recommendations are placed before the BRS Page 6 of 14 for final decision-making. This procedure has been duly adhered to in the present case.
(f). Pursuant to input from the Head (Department of Statistics) indicates that the applicant may refer to University's Ordinance VI, which outlines Ph.D. rules and regulations. A copy of the Ordinance is enclosed. The Ordinance and its amendments are accessible on the University's website, www.du.ac.in under the head 'Research' 'Research Ordinances and Gazette Notifications' and under the head 'Important Links' 'Office Orders/Circulars/Guidelines' 'Rules, Policies and Ordinances Statutes and Ordinances'. Act,
(g). Input from the Head (Department of Statistics) is enclosed in this regard.
However, if the applicant is not satisfied with the information provided, she may inspect the relevant files/documents pertaining to the original application, which can be disclosed under various provisions of the Act, at a mutually convenient date and time with the Office of the Head (Department of Statistics) on telephone no. 011-27666671 (email id- [email protected]) on or before 28.05.2025. The inspection will be provided only to the applicant and not to his nominee. Inspection is required to be provided after severing information in terms of various provisions of section 8(1) of the Act."
(3) CIC/UODEL/A/2025/120989 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.12.2024 CPIO replied on : 22.01.2025 First appeal filed on : 17.02.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 12.03.2025 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18.06.2025 Information sought:
9. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.12.2024seeking the following information:-
"a. Name and respective area of specialization of all the supervisors in the current SupervisionPanel of University of Delhi, as of November 1, 2024. b. Criteria/method adopted by University of Delhi for deciding the seats for Ph.D. registrations in an academic year.
c. Number of times applications can be called for Ph.D. registrations in an academic year.Page 7 of 14
d. Number of candidates asked for by each of the supervisors for academic years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 e. Number of students assigned to each supervisor for academic years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025, f. Agenda, minutes of the DRC meetings and final outcome of said meetings, in which students were assigned to each supervisor for the academic year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025.
g. Total seats advertised for Ph.D. registrations for the academic year 2024-25, along with the respective major areas in which the seats have been advertised.
h. Criteria for deciding the major areas of specialization of Supervisors, to be offered by the department.
Criteria for rejecting the demand of candidates made by a potential supervisor who is on contemporary supervision panel, j. Seats demanded by undersigned Prof. Babita Goyal for the academic years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 and her areas of specialization as per record maintained by University of Delhi.
k. Particulars of students already enrolled under Prof. Babita Goyal as per record maintained by university of Delhi."
10. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 22.01.2025 stating as under:-
"(a) (d), (e),(f)0020&(h). (i). On perusal of the original application, it appears that the requests of the applicant are not specific to terms particular faculty/department, which is contrary to section 6(1) of the Act. Therefore, no further input can be provided in this regard.
(b), (c),(i)&(j). Pursuant to input from the Chairperson, Research Council and Joint Registrar (Council) indicates that the applicant may refer to Ordinance VI of the Ordinances of the University which pertains to Ph.D. rules ar regulations in this regard, a copy of which is enclosed. Ordinance VI and its amendments, are available on the University's website, www.du.ac.in under the head 'Research' - 'Research Ordinances and Gezette Notifications' and under the head 'Important Links" - "Office Page 8 of 14 Orders/Circulars/Guidelines'-'Rules, Policies and Ordinances-Act, Statutes and Ordinances
(g). The applicant may refer to the Bulletin of Information for admission to Ph.D. Programmes in this regard at available PhD_compressed.pdf).
the weblink-
https://admission.uod.ac.in/userfiles/downloads/13112024_BOI-
(j)&(k) The matter is being further pursued with the Head (Department of Statistics)."
11. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.02.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 12.03.2025, stated as under :-
"On perusal of the OA, input provided by the Deemed PIO, the decision of the CPIO and the first appeal, it has been observed that some information in this matter has already been provided to the appellant. However, the CPIO is directed to revisit the OA point wise and decide the matter as per relevant provisions of the Act within three weeks from the date of receipt of this Order, on obtaining relevant input beyond what has already been provided from the concerned deemed PIOs in this matter."
12. In compliance of FAA's order, the CPIO furnished a revised reply to the Appellant on 18.04.2025 stating as under -
In compliance to the decision of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) dated 12.03.2025, regarding sl.no. (b).(c), (d)&(e), following is informed:
(b)& (c).In this connection, it is informed that the applicant may refer to Ordinance VI of the Ordinances of the University and its amendments, available on the website of the University, www.du.ac.in under the head Important Links' - 'Office Orders/Circulars/Guidelines' - 'Act, Statutes and Ordinances' specifically 'Procedure for Admission (copy enclosed). For further guidance, Bulletin of Information for Ph.D. admissions available on the admission portal of the University, www.admission.uod.ac.in- 2024 may also be consulted.
(d)&(e). On perusal of the original application, it appears that the requests of the applicant are not specific in terms of particular faculty/ department, which is contrary to section 6(1) of the Act. For further elucidation, the applicant may refer to the relevant section of Ordinance VI and its amendments specifically 'Eligibility Criteria for Supervisor (copy enclosed), which is available on the website of the University, Page 9 of 14 www.du.ac.in under the head 'Important Links'-'Office Orders/Circulars/Guidelines' - 'Act, Statutes and Ordinances'.
13. Challenging the replies of the Respondents,Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeals.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Shri Sudesh Kumar Goyal, Advocate present in person.
Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, AR (Academic & Info.)/ CPIO along with Prof. Girish Chandra, Dean Faculty/DPIO and Shri Rakesh Hasija, Asst. Registrar/ the then CPIO present in person.
14. Written statement of the Appellant and CPIO filed in each of these Appeal is taken on record.
15. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant while narrating the factual background stated that Appellant is a Professor, working in Department of Statistics, Ramjas College, Delhi University. She along with Prof. Alka Sabharwal were assigned the role of Supervisor/ Guide for a PH.D. Research student, Ms. Gargi Singh at the relevant time. However, this assigned was arbitrarily withdrawn by the Research Advisory Committee (RAC) and transferred to some other Professor without the consent of the Appellant. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant pleaded that such action of the Delhi University caused prejudice and humiliation to the Appellant and set bad precedent for her future references. In order to get justice, the Appellant through RTI applications in question sought related information pertaining to her own case, however, she is aggrieved by the fact that complete information was malafide not disclosed by the CPIO. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant further pleaded that Appellant also availed the opportunity of inspection of relevant records in compliance of FAA's orders, yet, the information was duly facilitated by the CPIO. Hence, these Second Appeals before the Commission. In case File No. CIC/UODEL/A/2025/104768, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant added that Appellant is satisfied with the reply of the CPIO at point No. a and c of RTI application under reference, however, the minutes of meetings furnished by the CPIO on remaining points are blank paper which is equivalent to Nil information of no value. Lastly, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant prayed the Page 10 of 14 Commission that if due opportunity of inspection of relevant records be facilitated to the Appellant with proper assistance of the CPIO, then it will serve the purpose of Appellant filing these RTI applications.
16. Per contra, CPIO by inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of initial replies stated that point-wise replies along with relevant available information was already provided to the Appellant initially and thereafter, in compliance of FAA's order. In addition to it, opportunity of inspection of relevant records was also accorded to the Appellant on previous occasions which she duly availed and acknowledged in writing. As regards contentions of the Appellant, the CPIO apprised the Bench regarding the norms/procedure followed by Committee in change of Supervisor/Guide on the request of students and Guidelines in this regard is available in Ordinance VI of Delhi University which can be accessed from the official website of Delhi University. CPIO stated that even the Appellant is still not satisfied, she may again come and inspect the records on a mutually convenient date and time. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant expressed willingness to avail the opportunity of inspection.
Decision:
17. Heard the parties at length.
18. On going through the submissions of the parties and perusal of records, the Commission observed, at the outset that the core issue raised in the instant matters is not as much as about seeking access to information per serather it is about redressal of Appellant's grievance regarding withdrawal of her guidance ship/ supervision in the mid-phase.
19. From the standpoint of RTI Act, 2005 the replies of the CPIO furnished with the copy of relevant enclosures are in spirit of RTI Act, 2005, merits of which cannot be called into question.
20. It is noteworthy that CPIO is supposed to provide only such information as is held in the office records and is permissible under the RTI Act, 2005 and not the ones which are not held by the Public Authority and is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, the Commission relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
Page 11 of 14"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied)
21. As far as jurisdiction of Commission is concerned,areference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter ofHansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied).
22. The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter ofGovt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
23. While, the Apex Court in the matter ofUnion of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or Page 12 of 14 more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied)
24. Nonetheless, considering the limited prayer of the Appellant and as per the oral submissions tendered by the CPIO during hearing, the Commission deems it fit to direct, Shri Ashwani Kumar, AR (Academic & Info.)/ CPIO, Delhi University to facilitate one moreopportunity of inspection of relevant records in response to instant RTI applications to the Appellant, on a mutually convenient date and time within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Before giving a date to the Appellant, the Respondent should supply her a list of files connected with the query raised in the RTI applications under reference by giving File Nos., Subject of the file, and total number of pages of correspondence in each file. Further, on the day of inspection, all relevant records must be brought at one place to facilitate inspection and not make the Appellant run around various departments of the Respondent Public Authority. Intimation of date and time should be informed to the Appellant well in advance in writing. Copy of records as may be desired by the Appellant be provided upon receipt of requisite fees as per RTI Rules, 2012. Information which are exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act may be redacted/severed under Section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005.
25. The above-mentioned directions be complied by the PIO within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report to this effect be also uploaded on the CIC's portal through the link http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add.
The Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सू चनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Page 13 of 14 Ms.BABITA GOYAL Page 14 of 14 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)