Central Information Commission
Jainam Shah vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 2 March, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2024/632036
JAINAM SHAH ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Ministry of Home Affairs
New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 25.04.2024 FA : 28.05.2024 SA : 26.07.2024
FAO : 08.01.2025
CPIO : 15.05.2024 Hearing : 25.02.2026
(received via rejoinder)
Date of Decision: 02.03.2026
CORAM
Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.04.2024, before the CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs, seeking information as under:
"1) E-Copies of all the representations/Emails received for the criminalisation of Adultery up-to-date.
2) E-Copies of all the representations/mails received for the criminalisation/de-
recognition of Consensual relationships/LGBTQ up-to-date.
3) E-Copies of all the Suggestions/Consultation/recommendations received for the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 up-to-date"
Page 1 of 5 Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2024/6320362. The CPIO & DS (J & PP) replied to the RTI Application on 15.05.2024, as under:
"In this regard, it is informed that the information is not maintained in the format that you have asked for and compilation would result in disproportionate diversion of our resources. Hence, there is no information to furnish with regard to the RTI application u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act."
3. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.05.2024, before the FAA, Ministry of Home Affairs.
4. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on 26.07.2024.
5. Subsequently, the Appellant filed an undated rejoinder stating that the FAA & JS (Judicial) has passed an order dated 08.01.2025, disposing the instant First Appeal, as under:
"...AND WHEREAS, the appeal made by appellant has been perused and observed that the information sought by the appellant is fiduciary in nature and the same is exempted for disclosure as per Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005."
6. In light of the FAA's order, the Appellant prayed for setting it aside, for introducing a new ground of denial that was not mentioned in the CPIO's reply, while also agitating against the failure of the FAA to offer a hearing opportunity.
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
7. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference. On behalf of the Respondent, Sunil Kumar Singh, US & Rep. of CPIO attended the hearing in person.
8. The Appellant stated that he has sought the information for research purposes, being a student of Law. He further stated that the FAA's order was passed after an inordinate delay without even giving any hearing opportunity and further denied the information wrongly citing Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The Commission also took on record the written submissions filed by the Appellant vide letter dated 17.02.2026, wherein the Page 2 of 5 Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2024/632036 Appellant had inter alia relied on various judicial pronouncements to challenge the invocation of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
9. The Respondent reiterated the material facts available on record and their written submissions dated 30.01.2026 were also taken on record.
10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, observes that the reply provided by the CPIO on 15.05.2024 was as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The information sought in the RTI Application is concededly found to be unspecific, entailing three distinct subject matters. For the said reason, the Commission finds the FAA's order to be inappropriate and liable to be set aside as bad in law as the FAA failed to examine the reply provided by the CPIO and passed an order, unrelated to the material facts of the case and without any objective basis.
11. Given the facts of the instant case, the attention of the parties is drawn towards a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] which, inter-alia, observed as under:
'37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information, (that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely Page 3 of 5 Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2024/632036 affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. 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, tranquility, and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. 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. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.'
12. In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission finds no scope for intervention in the matter. However, the Commission also takes an adverse view of the inordinate delay caused in the FAA's order. The FAA is cautioned against issuance of such orders in future, in view of the Commission's observations in Para 10 above and to ensure that First Appeal(s) are strictly decided in a time bound manner as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
13. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
A copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Raj Kumar Goyal) (राज कुमार गोयल) Chief Information Commissioner (मु सूचना आयु ) िदनां क/Date: 02.03.2026 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 5 Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2024/632036 Page 5 of 5 Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2024/632036 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)