Central Information Commission
Mrmukesh Jain vs Cbse on 11 March, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/CC/A/2015/004038SA
(Video Conference - Agra)
Mukesh Jain, Agra Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI/CPIO: 161/16215 (31) 1st Appeal: 952015 2nd Appeal: 2152015
Hearing: 25022016 Result: Rejected Remarks: MISUSE of RTI
Decision: 11032016
Parties Present:
The appellant is present at NIC Studio, Agra. The Public Authority is represented by Mr.
Tarun Kumar, Ms. Kavita Vazirani and Mr. Som Nath.
FACTS:
2. The appellant wanted under RTI, number of students appearing in 10th and 12th board
examination to be conducted in year 2015, in form of list according to their School, subject and
medium of instruction. The CPIO said it can be provided only after results of 2015 exams. There
was no response in first appeal. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed a second appeal.
DECISION:
3. Both the parties made their submissions. The officers of public authority pointed out that
the appellant is a publisher and there is every possibility that such voluminous information is
used to expand his public reach for commercial purposes. The appellant refused to answer on
questions about genuineness of demand or established any public interest behind his request.
He stated that he need not disclose his motive or purpose. Commission notices a reasonable
apprehension that appellant's demand for voluminous information is unreasonable, intended to
CIC/CC/A/2015/004038SA Page 1
serve his commercial interest, without a genuine purpose and might lead to wastage of public
resources.
The question before the Commission was whether appellant should disclose the
purpose of the demand for information or not.
Section 6(2) specifically mandated:
An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for
requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary
for contacting him.
4. Thus ordinarily, RTI Act does not allow the authorities to seek reasons for request for the
information. The appellant was right to some extent that the motive behind the demand for
information need not be given by him.
5. Under Section 8(1) clauses (d),(e) and (j) requires every RTI authority to find whether larger
public interest demands the disclosure in spite of specific exceptions. Under Section 8(2) the
PIO, FAA and IC need to find out if there is any public interest in giving information though any
one of 10 exceptions under 8(1) enables them to deny. While PIO has to discharge burden of
justifying the denial, it is also the duty of the appellant to establish how the demand is in 'public
interest'. In fact this should be his ground of appeal. It is in his interest the appellant was
expected to give motive, reasons or mention any other circumstances or evidence to establish
'public interest' which enables the authorities (at three levels) to consider possibility of
disclosing information.
Even if the appellant does not disclose the reasons and motive or establish any public interest,
whether he makes any plea or mentions as ground of appeal in second appeal or not it is
mandatory for the Commission to examine whether any public interest existed. In fact the Act
mandates PIO and First Appellate authority to examine 'public interest' at their own level of
decision making, which could be reviewed in further appeals. The usage of expression 'larger'
public interest in 8(1) and words "public interest 'outweighs' the harm to the protected interests"
in 8(2) gives lot of scope for the Commission to decide whether information should to be given
or not.
CIC/CC/A/2015/004038SA Page 2
6. If the appellant's request for information does not attract any of exceptions, the appellant,
as pleaded in this case, need not give reasons for demand and also he need not reveal his
identity, if he does not want. However, the moment the demand for information is such that it
invokes the exceptions under Section 8 and exemptions to those exceptions rooted in 'public
interest', it becomes mandatory for the appellant to put forth reasons, and who he was, on his
own as grounds of appeal, if not in response to the questions asked by the appellate authority
in first or second appeals. In this case, appellant was demanding names and other details of
thousands of minor students, which surely include personal information about each and every
student. The First Appellate Authority Dr Sanyam Bharadwaj, Joint Secretary (Coordination)
ordered on 12.6.2015 rejected the appeal saying PIO has rightly denied information under s
8(1)(j). He also mentioned PIO's reply that he was not satisfied the larger public interest is
being served by the disclosure of this information to appellant.
7. The CPIO, who suspected motive of the appellant, has rightly looked whether any public
interest is established by appellant for disclosing any information and properly rejected it.
Information soughtdoes not belong to category that could be disclosed generally under section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act. The Commission finds no reason to interfere with the decision of PIO as confirmed in first appeal. The tone and tenor of RTI request and the impolite contentions of the appellant enhance the suspicion that he had commercial interests behind seeking voluminous personal information of minor children.
8. The RTI Act cannot be allowed to be abused for serving commercial needs of the appellantpublishers so that he uses the data of school children for reaching out to them or their parents as his customers. The appellant is clearly misusing the scheme of RTI. The apex court bench of Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice A.K. Patnaik in a judgment in Central Board Of Sec. Education & vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors , Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011 held :
CIC/CC/A/2015/004038SA Page 3 .... the Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquillity and harmony among its citizens. .... 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.
9. Hence, rejected.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (U. C. Joshi) Deputy Secretary Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO under the RTI Act, Govt of India Central Board of Secondary Education Shiksha KendraII, Preet Vihar, New Delhi110092 .
2.Shri Mukesh Jain
1/12, Sahitya Kunj, MG Road
AGRA282002 UP
CIC/CC/A/2015/004038SA Page 4