Central Information Commission
Naresh Luthra vs Indira Gandhi National Open University ... on 27 February, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मु िनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: Two Cases.
(1) CIC/IGNOU/C/2025/653004,
(2) CIC/IGNOU/A/2025/608375.
Naresh Luthra ....िशकायतकता/Complainant
.....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
THE CPIO
INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY,
DEPUTY REGISTRAR, (RTI CELL),
ROOM No-08, BLOCK No.-01,
ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION,
MAIDAN GARHI, NEW DELHI -110068 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26.02.2025
Date of Decision : 26.02.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Note- The above-mentioned Complaint and Second Appeal have been
clubbed together for disposal through common order as these are based on
same RTI application.
CIC/IGNOU/C/2025/653004
CIC/IGNOU/A/2025/608375
Relevant facts emerging from Complaint/Second Appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25.10.2024
CPIO replied on : 22.08.2025
First appeal filed on : 15.12.2024
Page 1 of 11
First Appellate Authority's order : 30.05.2025
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 17.11.2025
Information sought:
1. The Complainant/Appellantfiled an RTI application dated 25.10.2024seeking the following information:
"1. Clarification on Self-Explanatory Categorization:
The complaints were categorized as self-explanatory by Vigilance IGNOU when forwarded to the SED Registrar. Please provide detailed findings from Vigilance IGNOU regarding the aspects of the complaints that were deemed self-explanatory, articulated in clear and understandable terms that convey the gravity of the issues raised. Additionally, please specify:
o The key officials of IGNOU who were mentioned in the complaints, as per the findings of Vigilance IGNOU.
o The rationale for forwarding this complaint to the SED Registrar for investigation.
o The applicable rules or guidelines that support this rationale for assigning the investigation to the SED Registrar. o Updates provided by the SED Registrar to the Vigilance Cell, IGNOU, as per the letter dated 24-January-24, where the Vigilance Cell mentioned that the matter needs to be investigated on a priority basis under intimation to this Cell.
2. Weekly Progress Investigation Details:
Please provide full copies of all documentation related to the weekly progress of the investigation. This should include: o A detailed timeline outlining the steps taken and actions initiated during each week of the investigation, including the start date of each week and the dates of these actions.
o The findings and conclusions reached at various stages of the investigation.
o The names, designations, and roles of the officials overseeing and conducting the investigation.
If no documentation exists for the weekly progress of the investigation, please provide any alternative records that detail the overall progress and actions taken, along with a written explanation for their absence.
3. Investigation Status and Official Details as of Filing the RTI dated 25- October-24:Page 2 of 11
Please provide a complete copy of the final investigation report, specifically addressing the issues raised in the letter dated 23-January-24 (annexed as Annexure 1). The report should include: o A detailed account of the evidence collected by the investigating officials.
o The findings of the investigation.
o Any recommendations made as a result of the investigation. If the final investigation report is not yet available, please provide the investigation details as of the filing of this RTI dated 25-October-24, including:
o The current status of the investigation.
o Actions taken to date.
Additionally Information:
Please share the applicable rules or regulations governing the withholding of the final investigation report or it non-existence, particularly given that approximately nine months have passed since the initial report to Viglance on 23-January-24 and its forwarding to the SED Registrar on 24- January-24
4. Facta Collected and Documents Submitted:
Please provide detailed information regarding all facts collected and documents submitted lay individuals involved in the investigation process. This should include o A comprehensive list of all relevant facts gathered during the investigation.
o Copies of all documents submitted by individuals involved in the investigation.
o The assesment of the investigating officials regarding the significance of these facts and documents in relation to the investigation
5. Request for Final investigation Report or Current Investigation Report:
Please provide complete copy of the final investigation report, specifically addressing the issues raised in the letter dated 23-January-24 Jannesed as Annexure
1). The report should include o A details of the evidence collected by the investigating officials, findings, and any recommendations made.Page 3 of 11
6. Final Action Report:
Please provide a detailed action report based on the investigation findings related to the letter sent to Vigilance IGNOU am 23-January-24. This report should clearly outline the actions taken or proposed by Vigilance IGNOU aur any other relevant department in connection with this investigation.
7. General Rules and Procedures:
Please provide the general rules applicable to the Vigilance Department for investigating rames reported to them, including: o The procedure of investigation o Guidelines for drafting the investigation report. o The process for submitting the report and the action report based on the investigation findings.
o The timeline for closure of these investigations. o Information on how complaints are intimated to the concerned parties during the investigation process. o Please provide information on how the actions taken or the final outcome of the investigation are communicated to the complainant, along with the relevant rules or regulations governing this process."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant/Appellanton 22.08.2025 stating as under:
"Reply:- The information with regard to investigation conducted by Vigilance IGNOU sought by you pertains to Vigilance Cell, IGNOU, Hence the same has been already transferred to Vigilance Cell, IGNOU for further course of action and responding to you directly."
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 15.12.2024.The FAA vide its order dated 30.05.2025, stated as under:-
"Reply:- Vigilance Cell, IGNOU vide its letter dated 09/01/2025 informed to Mr. Naresh Luthra, Delhi that vigilance cell is not pursing the matter. You are therefore requested to approach SED, IGNOU for further course of action."
4. Challenging the FAA's order, Complainant/Appellantis before the Commission with the instant Complaint and Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
Page 4 of 11The following were present:-
Complainant/Appellant:Not present.
Respondent: Shri Jagram Meena, AR/CPIO, SED, IGNOU along with Shri Gyan Prakash Kujur, ASO present in person.
5. Complainant/Appellant remained absent during hearing despite service.
6. A written statement dated 24.02.2026 filed by Shri Santosh Arora, AR/CPIO, Vig. Cell, IGNOU is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ease of reference -
"In this regard, it is submitted that the information with regard to RTI request dated 25/10/2024 and Appeal dated 15/12/2024 received from Shri Naresh Luthra pertained to the Student Evaluation Division (SED), IGNOU Accordingly, the matter was forwarded to SED for further necessary action. In this regard, a reply was sent to Shri Naresh Luthra vide letter no. IG/Vig./RTI/164/24/419 dated 09/01/2025 with a request to approach SED, IGNOU. The copy of the same is enclosed herewith (copy enclosed- Annexure-I). Subsequently, Ministry of Education vide its letter dated 09/09/2024 (forwarded the CVC Ref. No. 63521/2024 dated 05/07/2024 followed by letter dated 18/09/2024 requested to look into the matter. In response, Vigilance Cell submitted the reply to Ministry of Education vide letter no. IG/Vig./Gen. Compit./N. Luthra/24/422 dated 21/01/2025 (copy enclosed - Annexure-II). Further, in response to Ministry of Education letter nos. C-13011/22/2025-Vig. and F.No.13-2/2025-DL dated 03/10/2025 and 13/10/2025 respectively addressed to Hon'ble Vice-Chancellor, IGNOU, Vigilance Cell submitted the reply to Ministry of Education vide letter no. IG/Vig./Gen. Complt./ N. Luthra/24/522 dated 16/12/2025 (copy enclosed - Annexure-III). Further more, Ministry of Education vide letter no. C-13011/22/2025-Vig. dated 03/12/2025 sought the information regarding the CVC complaint nos. 63521/2024 dated 05/07/2024 and No. 103384/2025 dated 14/04/2025. In response, Vigilance Cell submitted the reply to Ministry of Education vide letter no. IG/Vig./Gen. Complt./N. Luthra/24/557 dated 29/12/2025 (copy enclosed- Annexure-IV)."
7. Per contra, a written statement dated 25.02.2026 filed by the Complainant/Appellant, which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference -
I. FOUNDATIONAL FACT: CHRONOLOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY IN DEGREE ISSUANCE Page 5 of 11
1. The genesis of the present matter lies in the manipulation and retrospective alteration of academic records relating to the issuance of the MBA provisional degree dated 26 November 2013, to evade legal scrutiny and potential penalties arising from a delay of nearly fifteen years in updating the University's records, which had remained uncorrected due to prolonged negligence within the Computer Section of the Student Evaluation Division.
2. As evident from Annexure A-1, the Student Evaluation Division, vide letter dated 29 September 2020, categorically confirmed that the Assignment Section's communication dated 20 September 2010, regarding non-completion of compulsory courses MS-05 and MS-06, was "correct and true," while simultaneously recording that the MBA degree had been issued in June 2010. This constitutes a self-contradictory and irreconcilable claim. If the earlier submission of the CPIO affirming non-completion of MS-05 and MS-06 was correct, it necessarily follows that the statutory requirements for awarding the MBA degree had not been fulfilled as of September 2010. Consequently, the MBA degree could not have been lawfully issued in June 2010 under the University's own rules, particularly in the absence of assignment grades for MS-05 and MS-06 under Enrolment No. 970139146.
3. September 2010 is subsequent to June 2010. Therefore, as on 20 September 2010, the programme remained incomplete as per their own record and same was shared in the RTI by CPIO SED vide his response on 26 August 2013 and CIC has the record in their file number .
4. However, as reflected in Annexure A-2, the Grade Card issued on 26 November 2013 declared that the MBA was successfully completed in June 2010.
5. This creates a chronological impossibility: a programme cannot be incomplete in September 2010 and simultaneously be certified as completed in June 2010.
6. This inconsistency formed the core of my vigilance complaint dated 23 January 2024.
II. FAILURE OF VIGILANCE TO INVESTIGATE AND DISCLOSE
7. As shown in Annexure A-3, on 24 January 2024, the Vigilance Cell forwarded my complaint to the Student Evaluation Division for priority investigation under intimation to Vigilance.
8. Thereafter, no Action Taken Report, investigation findings, or reasoned conclusions were ever furnished to the appellant. Instead, the matter was allowed to remain pending and unresolved, enabling the passage of time to dilute accountability and conceal the University's administrative malfeasance.
9. Consequently, the appellant was compelled to file an RTI application dated 25 October 2024 seeking disclosure of investigation records and the Action Taken Report, as evidenced by Annexure A-4. Had the Vigilance Cell examined the issue of degree issuance on its merits with due accountability and transparency, the present appeals and complaints would have been rendered unnecessary.
Page 6 of 11The continued silence of the University in disclosing the Action Taken Report, coupled with the subsequent misuse of the RTI mechanism through circular transfers of the RTI application, reflects a conscious and collective administrative choice to conceal institutional malfeasance, rather than a mere clerical lapse or inadvertent omission.
III. SELF-CONTRADICTORY POSITIONS AND CIRCULAR REDIRECTION
10. Vide letter dated 09 January 2025 (Annexure A-5), the Chief Vigilance Officer stated that Vigilance was "not pursuing the matter" and directed the Appellant / complainant to approach SED.
11. Subsequently, as per Annexure A-6, the PIO, SED, vide reply dated 22 August 2025, categorically stated that the matter "pertains to Vigilance Cell" and transferred the RTI application back to Vigilance. This position directly contradicts the order of the First Appellate Authority dated 30 May 2025, wherein the RTI application had been directed to the PIO, SED for response and disposal. This reversal of position, reflected in successive official communications, demonstrates a pattern of circular redirection and administrative evasion, reinforcing the appellant's contention that the University has failed to discharge its statutory obligations in a transparent and accountable manner.
12. This sequence of events demonstrates the arbitrariness in the adjudication of RTI Appeal No. IGNOU/A/E/24/00672 by the First Appellate Authority, wherein the statutory duties mandated under the RTI Act were disregarded, thereby undermining the efficacy and credibility of the appellate process. It is further submitted (Annexure A-7) that Prof. Subodh Keshwani, while functioning both as the First Appellate Authority and as the Chief Vigilance Officer, failed to act in an independent and impartial manner. Instead, the Vigilance Cell proceeded to justify and endorse the action of the Student Evaluation Division in issuing the degree certificate despite the courses remaining in a "Not Clear" status.
The record clearly establishes that this is not an isolated lapse, but forms part of a broader pattern of administrative malfeasance, institutional defensiveness, and failure of internal oversight mechanisms within IGNOU.
13. Thus:
(a) Vigilance disclaimed responsibility in January 2025 and redirected me to SED;
(b) SED disclaimed responsibility in August 2025 and redirected the matter back to Vigilance.
14. This resulted in a closed administrative loop in which no authority accepted responsibility for disclosure.
15. The repeated and circular movement of the RTI application between different offices appears to be a deliberate and well-considered process designed to exhaust the appellant through unnecessary and extraneous appeals and complaints, with the apparent intent of causing fatigue and discouragement, in Page 7 of 11 the hope that the appellant would eventually abandon the matter. Such a course of conduct, if left unchecked, enables serious administrative malfeasance to remain unexamined, unaccountable, and beyond effective scrutiny. IV. DEFECTS IN THE VIGILANCE SUBMISSION DATED 24 FEBRUARY 2026
16. The Vigilance Cell's submission dated 24 February 2026 (Annexure A-8) conspicuously omits any reference to the decisive SED reply dated 22 August 2025, while selectively relying on the January 2025 communication. This omission suppresses a material document that directly contradicts the narrative presently advanced before this Hon'ble Commission.
Instead of addressing the core issues of the fifteen-year administrative delay, the complete absence of any Action Taken Report, and the mutually contradictory positions taken by the Vigilance Cell and the Student Evaluation Division, the respondents have shifted focus toward correspondence with the Ministry of Education. Notably, this correspondence itself arose from grievances directed against the Vigilance Cell and its failure to discharge statutory responsibilities, and did not pertain to the principal issue of academic record manipulation raised in the present RTI application.
This diversionary approach is akin to what is commonly described as the "dead cat strategy"--placing a peripheral issue on the table to divert attention from uncomfortable and determinative questions. The practical effect is to displace scrutiny from institutional accountability and replace it with procedural distraction.
17. Instead of disclosing the information sought under the RTI Act, the said submission merely refers to correspondence exchanged with the Ministry of Education and encloses copies thereof.
18. By doing so, the Vigilance Cell has substituted statutory disclosure with administrative narration and has attempted to convert a clear RTI proceeding into an inter-departmental or Central Vigilance-related dispute.
19. The RTI application does not seek adjudication of the Central Vigilance Commission complaint. It seeks records: investigation status, internal notings, findings, and Action Taken Report. Reference to Ministry correspondence cannot substitute for disclosure of such records.
V. WITHHOLDING OF MINISTRY-LEVEL CORRESPONDENCE
20. It is pertinent that the Ministry of Education has repeatedly escalated the matter back to IGNOU for response.
21. However, I have no access to:
(a) Correspondence exchanged between the Ministry and IGNOU;
(b) Internal responses submitted by IGNOU;
(c) Directions or observations issued by the Ministry.Page 8 of 11
22. These records are exclusively within the custody of the public authority and have been deliberately withheld.
VI. UNANSWERED CORE ISSUES
23. As on date, the following fundamental questions remain unanswered:
(a) On what lawful basis was the MBA declared completed in June 2010 despite the September 2010 record of incompletion?
(b) What investigation, if any, was conducted on my complaint dated 23 January 2024?
(c) Whether any Action Taken Report exists?
(d) What responses were furnished by IGNOU to the Ministry of Education?
(e) What directions, if any, were received from the Ministry?
(f) On what basis has the present RTI Application been portrayed as a dispute between the Central Vigilance Commission and IGNOU (Vigilance), instead of being addressed strictly as a statutory request for information under the RTI Act seeking disclosure of records?
24. The failure to disclose these records, coupled with circular redirection and selective omission, amounts to constructive denial of information under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act.
25. The core issue concerns the issuance of a degree certificate by India's premier public university at a time when the mandatory courses remained incomplete, a fact established by official records and admitting of no ambiguity. This matter was duly escalated to the Vigilance Cell, IGNOU, for investigation into serious administrative malfeasance. However, instead of discharging its statutory duty to conduct an independent and impartial inquiry, the Vigilance Cell diverted responsibility to the Student Evaluation Division, whose officials were themselves implicated in the irregularities. Consequently, IGNOU Vigilance, which was entrusted with ensuring accountability and probity, is now itself under scrutiny for shielding the very administrative malfeasance it was required to investigate. The Vigilance mechanism, intended to be part of the solution, has thereby become part of the problem, and, as evident from its letter dated 24 February 2026 addressed to the Hon'ble Commission, appears compelled to defend its own failures and omissions before the Ministry of Education rather than address the substantive RTI queries placed on record."
8. Shri Jagram Meena, AR/CPIO, SED, IGNOUplaced reliance on the written statement and stated that core grievance of the Complainant/Appellant pertaining this matters relates to admission of Complainant/Appellant in pursuing two courses and seeking transfer of assignments from one which was pursued in 1992 to another one with different enrolment No. which was pursued by the Complainant/Appellant somewhere in 2013. The Page 9 of 11 Complainant/Appellant made multiple complaints and sought action taken report in this regard by filing numerous RTI applications as well. CPIO stated that they are covered under Student Evaluation Division (SED) wing while the complaint of the Complainant/Appellant was dealt by the Vigilance of IGNOU which is different, therefore, information are not held by SED. This factual position was also informed to the Complainant/Appellant. CPIO further apprised the Bench that Complainant/Appellant has already filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which is pending before the Court.
9. The Bench orally directed to the CPIO to give a revised categorical reply in consolidated form answering each query raised in the RTI application in question, which the CPIO agreed to do the needful.
Decision:
10. Heard the party, appeared.
11. Considering the facts of this matter, the Commission on perusal of records observed that the reply of the CPIO given at the initial stage was not very cogent and not adequately addresses all the queries raised by the Complainant/Appellant, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. This is evident from the fact that, the information sought by Complainant/Appellant majorly revolves on action taken report on his complaint and Rule position in this regard, whereas the CPIO instead of intimating categorical action taken and existing Rule position forwarded the RTI application to the concerned department which is Vigilance Cell of IGNOU. Here, it is pertinent to note that there is a provision of Section 5 (4) of the RTI Act, 2005 which provides that CPIO can seeking assistance from the department concerned to facilitate information to the applicant which appears to be not done in this case.
12. However, it does not appears to be done with malafide intent which calls for any action under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.
13. Nonetheless, considering the prayer of the Complainant/Appellant and as per the oral discussions held during hearing, the Commission deems it fit to direct Shri Jagram Meena, CPIO, SED to revisit the contents of RTI application to provide a revised point-wise categorical reply along with relevant available information, after accessing the same from the concerned department under Section 5 (4) of the RTI Act, 2005. The revised reply shall be furnished to the Complainant/Appellant, free of cost, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
Page 10 of 1114. No further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matters at this juncture.
The Complaint and Second Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधारानीरे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सू चनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011-26767500 Date Shri Naresh Luthra Page 11 of 11 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)