Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Anil Kumar vs National Institute Of Technology, ... on 14 July, 2025

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

     वतीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NITUK/A/2024/626344

 Anil Kumar                                                     ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                            VERSUS
                                             बनाम
 CPIO:
 National Institute of Technology,                           ... तवाद गण/Respondents
 Srinagar, Uttarakhand

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI :         27.04.2024         FA        : 08.05.2024        SA      : 20.06.2024

 CPIO : 06.05.2024                FAO : 24.05.2024              Hearing : 30.06.2025


Date of Decision: 11.07.2025
                                          CORAM:
                                    Hon'ble Commissioner
                                  _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                         ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Vivek Kumar has completed his Bachelor of Technology in Computer Science and Engineering Degree from your institute on 10th July 2019. Please provide information in which category (ST, SC, OBC, EWS, General) and caste he is enrolled.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 06.05.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

The information cannot be provided in light of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.05.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 24.05.2024 stated that:

Such information regarding a third party was not provided by the CPIO of NIT Uttarakhand as per provisions under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. No public interest seems to be involved in such case where the applicant has sought personal information about a third party.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 20.06.2024.

5. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and the respondent remained absent during the hearing despite notice

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had sought information regarding Mr. Vivek Kumar but the same was denied by the CPIO u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Appellant respondent and perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought for the personal information of third party, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, the CPIO correctly denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:

"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."

8. The Commission takes serious note of the CPIO's absence during the hearing. Thus, the CPIO is hereby directed to send a written explanation to the Commission for not attending hearing before the Commission despite having received the hearing notice, via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add, within 20 days of the receipt of this order. Further, the reply given by the respondent is found to be appropriate and no further relief is warranted in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंद राम लंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु त) दनांक/Date: 11.07.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO, National Institute of Technology (NIT) NH 58, Srinagar, Uttarakhand - 246174

2. Anil Kumar Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)