Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Narender Kumar vs G.B. Pant Hospital on 16 February, 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/GBPHT/A/2024/631046

 Narender Kumar                                               ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम
 CPIO
 Govind Ballabh Pant Institute
 of P.G. Medical Education &
 Research, GNCTD                                           ... ितवादीगण/Respondent

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 19.01.2024               FA    : 13.03.2024            SA      : 20.07.2024

 CPIO : 20.02.2024              FAO : 18.04.2024              Hearing : 04.02.2026


Date of Decision: 13.02.2026

                                     CORAM
                Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
                                     ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.01.2024, before the CPIO, Govind Ballabh Pant Institute of P.G. Medical Education & Research (GIPMER), GNCTD, seeking information as under:

"(1) kindly supply the certified copy of complete file (noting & letters side) of RTI application No. F.55-RTI/GIPMER/Estt./2838/2022/16582 dated 14.11.2022.

(2) kindly allow to inspect the complete file of RTI application no. F.55-

RTI/FIPMER/Estt./2838/16582 dated 14.11.2022."

2. The CPIO, GIPMER, GNCTD, replied vide letter dated 20.02.2024 as under:

"Due to the presence of personal information of other people in this file and accordingly as per section (8)(1)(J) of RTI Act 2005 we may not disclose it."

3. Aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.03.2024, before the FAA, GIPMER, GNCTD, inter alia stating as under:

"4. As per Section 7(8) of the Act, it is the duty of the Public Information Officer to communicate the reasons for rejection of the application to the person making the request for information. In his reply in question, the PIO has merely stated the presence of personal information in the file. He remains silent on as to what in his opinion is personal information. Thus the PIO has left his reply dated 20.02.2024 completely vague, ambiguous and incomplete in order to hide the fact that he has not fulfilled his statutory duties of providing the information entrusted to him under the Act. The PIO has snatched my right of producing any judgment passed by any Court of Records in support of my claim that the information which is being treated as 'personal information' by the PIO has been exempted from being treated as 'personal information' by that court of record.

5. I would also like to draw the attention of the Appellate Authority towards the provisions relating to 'severability' contained in Section 10 of the Act which provides that if certain information is not been provided it being exempted, access may be provided to that information which is not exempted. The reply of the PIO dated 20.02.2024 implies that all the pages of the file; and all the paragraphs of all the pages of the file contains 'personal information' which is practically not possible. The PIO has not taken into consideration the provisions contained in section 10 before furnishing his reply to the appellant. This shows huge negligence on the part of PIO.

6. It is pertinent to mention here CIC as well as hon'ble High Court through its catena of judgements has reiterated and explained that "Section 8(1)(j) prohibits disclosure of personal information unless there is an element of public interest involved."

xxx Page 2 of 6 Second Appeal No. CIC/GBPHT/A/2024/631046

8. I, with reference to above cited case laws would like to bring this knowledge before the First Appellant Authority that the sought information was regarding appointment of JR/SR/PG doctors, since doctors who served and are serving and giving their services to public at large and they are performing their duties in Public Interest. And the Public Information Officer is under statutory obligation to provide any such information."

4. The FAA vide order dated 18.04.2024, held as under:

"...On perusal, it is found that the documents in the said file (F.55/RTI/GIPMER/Estt./2838/2022/16582) actually contains personal information of other employees, as stated by CPIO.

Therefore, the contention of the CPIO is allowed and inspection of the file as well as supply of certified copies of the complete file, as asked by the appellant, cannot be allowed and disclosed under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005."

5. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 20.07.2024, inter alia stating as under:

"..The appellant also submitted and relied upon the Hon'ble High Court (DB) bench judgment, titled "Surendra Singh Vs State of UP and Ors.", therein the Hon'ble Court observed that an education institute receiving grant in aid from state is public authority and institution appointing teachers and their education qualification is not an invasion on right to privacy. Their educational qualifications are not privy to them but are records available with the institution which is a public authority, within the meaning of the act..."

Hearing Proceedings & Decision

6. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite due service of notice. On behalf of the Respondent, Dr. Nitu Singh along with Vijay Singh, Sr. Asstt., attended the hearing in person.

7. The Commission took on record the written statement filed by the Appellant on 04.02.2026, shortly after the hearing was concluded, regretting his late arrival for the hearing and praying for a favourable order, as per the grounds of the second appeal.

8. The Respondent, upon being questioned about the RTI Application reference dated 14.11.2022, as mentioned in the instant RTI Application, agreed that the said reference also pertained to the Appellant, but the relevant RTI case file maintained by them, entails information about third parties, i.e other Junior Resident & Senior Resident Doctors. On being asked to provide greater clarity in her statement, the CPIO placed the relevant files before the Bench for perusal, without articulating her stance in the matter.

9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, at the outset, takes exception to the conduct of the CPIO during the hearing, as she appeared to be not aware of the purpose for which the matter was called upon, while displaying a sense of laxity and lack of comprehension/understanding of their own case files.

10. Nonetheless, after scrutinizing the relevant documents placed on record by the CPIO during the hearing, it is observed that the averred RTI case file contains many references made to third parties by the Respondent, seeking for their consent under Section 11 of the RTI Act, in respect of disclosure of their information, such as; 'Resignation Office Onder, Order of Extensions, order of appointment, Bio Data, DMC Certificate and undertaking regarding previous work experience', sought by the Appellant through his previous RTI Applications.

11. Further, the sum and substance of the Appellant's contentions is that education qualification of the doctors appointed by a public authority is not a matter of privacy. Here, it will be relevant to refer to the Apex Court's Constitution Bench judgment, 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 facets of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act have 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 Page 4 of 6 Second Appeal No. CIC/GBPHT/A/2024/631046 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794, as under:

"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...... This list is indicative and not exhaustive..." Emphasis Supplied

12. Now, it is needless to observe that the reply provided to the instant RTI Application and the stance of the Respondent during the hearing, lacked clarity in terms of what information is being denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, whilst, it is also noted now, that the referenced RTI case file pertained to the Appellant's earlier RTI Applications only, which fact was not disclosed by the Appellant at the First or Second Appeal stage, thereby causing unwarranted confusion during the hearing, in his absence to plead the case.

13. In view of para 7 & 10 above, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide a revised reply to the Appellant, after invoking Section 10 of the RTI Act, for redacting the contents which disclose the personal information of third parties, that is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The said revised reply of the CPIO incorporating the available information sans any disclosure of the personal information of third parties, shall be provided, free of cost to the Appellant, within two weeks of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.

14. 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: 13.02.2026 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26186535 Page 6 of 6 Second Appeal No. CIC/GBPHT/A/2024/631046 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)