Central Information Commission
Viplove Tyagi vs Indian Institute Of Science Education & ... on 11 February, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. (As Per Annexure)
Viplove Tyagi ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Indian Institute of
Science Education & ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Research (IISER), Pune,
Maharashtra
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
Sl. No. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of
Appeal RTI CPIO's First FAA's Second
No. Application Reply Appeal Order Appeal
1. 604728 30.10.2023 28.11.2023 04.12.2023 04.01.2024 04.02.2024
2. 604729 31.10.2023 29.11.2023 04.12.2023 04.01.2024 04.02.2024
3. 604730 03.11.2023 01.12.2023 04.12.2023 05.01.2024 04.02.2024
4. 604732 25.11.2023 22.12.2023 24.12.2023 29.01.2024 04.02.2024
5. 610451 04.12.2023 03.01.2023 03.01.2024 08.02.2024 09.03.2024
6. 613295 04.12.2023 03.01.2023 03.01.2024 08.02.2024 27.03.2024
7. 613296 22.12.2023 19.01.2024 19.01.2024 16.02.2024 27.03.2024
8. 613298 21.12.2023 19.01.2024 19.01.2024 16.02.2024 27.03.2024
9. 613447 22.12.2023 19.01.2024 19.01.2024 16.02.2024 27.03.2024
10. 613448 22.12.2023 19.01.2024 19.01.2024 16.02.2024 27.03.2024
11. 618762 24.12.2023 22.01.2024 22.01.2024 22.02.2024 04.05.2024
12. 618851 24.12.2023 22.01.2024 22.01.2024 22.02.2024 05.05.2024
13. 618852 24.12.2023 22.01.2024 22.01.2024 22.02.2024 05.05.2024
14. 618853 25.12.2023 23.01.2024 23.01.2024 23.02.2024 05.05.2024
15. 624328 04.01.2024 02.02.2024 02.02.2024 01.03.2024 09.06.2024
16. 624330 25.12.2023 23.01.2024 02.02.2024 01.03.2024 09.06.2024
17. 624331 25.12.2023 23.01.2024 02.02.2024 01.03.2024 09.06.2024
18. 624332 26.12.2023 23.01.2024 02.02.2024 01.03.2024 09.06.2024
19. 624333 10.02.2024 11.03.2024 11.03.2024 08.04.2024 09.06.2024
Page 1 of 52
20. 624335 10.02.2024 11.03.2024 11.03.2024 08.04.2024 09.06.2024
21. 624337 11.02.2024 11.03.2024 11.03.2024 08.04.2024 09.06.2024
22. 624339 11.02.2024 11.03.2024 11.03.2024 08.04.2024 09.06.2024
23. 624341 11.02.2024 11.03.2024 11.03.2024 08.04.2024 09.06.2024
24. 624343 11.02.2024 11.03.2024 11.03.2024 08.04.2024 09.06.2024
25. 624345 15.02.2024 13.03.2024 13.03.2024 08.04.2024 09.06.2024
26. 624346 18.02.2024 18.03.2024 18.03.2024 17.04.2024 09.06.2024
27. 624348 20.02.2024 19.03.2024 19.03.2024 18.04.2024 09.06.2024
28. 624349 20.02.2024 19.03.2024 19.03.2024 18.04.2024 09.06.2024
29. 624350 23.02.2024 22.03.2024 22.03.2024 22.04.2024 09.06.2024
30. 624351 24.02.2024 22.03.2024 22.03.2024 22.04.2024 09.06.2024
31. 624352 23.02.2024 22.03.2024 22.03.2024 22.04.2024 09.06.2024
32. 624353 26.02.2024 27.03.2024 27.03.2024 25.04.2024 09.06.2024
33. 624354 06.03.2024 04.04.2024 17.04.2024 16.05.2024 09.06.2024
34. 624355 06.03.2024 04.04.2024 17.04.2024 16.05.2024 09.06.2024
35. 624357 10.03.2024 08.04.2024 17.04.2024 16.05.2024 09.06.2024
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar
RTI Applications on the same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 11.02.2025
Date of Decision: 11.02.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/604728
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:
1. the appeal made by Viplove Tyagi against the committee decision in relation to IISER-P/PhD/20163495/1. The appeal is made via email dated 09 Oct 2023 and copied to the CVO, IISER Pune.
2. a copy each of IISER-P/PhD/20163495/4, IISER-P/PhD/20163495/5, IISER-
P/PhD/20163495/2022 and IISER-P/VT/RO dated 17/03/2022.
Page 2 of 523. entire documentation and records of the relevant committee proceedings following IISER-P/PhD/20163495/4, IISER-P/PhD/20163495/5, IISER- P/PhD/20163495/2022 and IISER-P/VT/RO dated 17/03/2022. For each and every document not provided in this reply, appropriate grounds for denial of information must be provided.
1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.11.2023. and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. The copy of the appeal may be referred to the email dated 09 Oct 2023 addressed by the applicant.
2. Kindly refer to the emails dated January 05, 2022, March 01, 2022, March 14, 2022, and March 17, 2022, from the academic office addressed to the applicant.
3. Kindly refer to the committees proceedings sent in response to your RTI application number ISERP/R/E/23/00031.
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.12.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 04.01.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 04.02.2024 Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/604729
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
(i) Please furnish a copy of the entire documentation available at the Institute pertaining to IISER-P/VT/RO date March 17, 2022, including committee reports, record of proceedings videographic or otherwise, and the substantiation to the assertions made therein. For each redaction and omitted document, please mention appropriate grounds for denial of information.Page 3 of 52
Large files, including videos, may be sent in the form of physical imprints to the address mentioned with this application.
2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 29.11.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Official orders and copies of the committee proceedings have already been issued to you via multiple emails/response to the previous RTI/PG applications you raised."
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.12.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 04.01.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
2.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 04.02.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/604730
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.11.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Please furnish a copy of the entire documentation available with the Institute, including letters, memos, and all communications, pertaining to
(a) FIR No. 494 dated 13/11/2021 at Chaturshringi Police Station, Pune, and
(b) FIR No. 241 dated 20/4/2022 at SIDCUL Police Station, Haridwar.
3.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 01.12.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Kindly refer to the order number IISER-P/VT/RO dated 17/03/2022 already send to you and the committees proceedings sent in response to your RTI application number ISERP/R/E/23/00031."Page 4 of 52
3.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.12.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 05.01.2024 stated as under: -
"The institute has not registered any FIR against the applicant."
3.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 04.02.2024 Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/604732
4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.11.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
1. Kindly furnish a copy of CPGRAMS Grievance registration number DSEHE/E/2023/0008153 received by the Institute, and a report of the actions taken thereon (see supporting document).
2. Please furnish a copy of the report of actions taken on the appeal made to the Institute administration on 09/11/2023 (see supporting document page 2 onwards).
4.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.12.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. The application number DSEHE/E/2023/0008153 under the CPGRAMS portal was disposed off on 29/11/2023. Copy of the Action Taken report from the portal is enclosed for reference.
2. Please refer to the email dated 18/12/2023 from the Institute in this regard. 4.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.12.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 29.01.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 04.02.2024.Page 5 of 52
Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/610451
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
1. Please furnish a copy of the following documents (1) the report dated 25 February 2022 of the committee as mentioned in IISER-P/VT/RO dated 17 March 2022.
2. subsequent reports of the aforementioned committee after 25 February 2022.
3. records of the proceedings and actions taken on the appeal received by the Institute on 09 Oct 2023 as mentioned in its reply to ISERP/R/E/23/00044.
4. the documents furnished in reply to ISERP/R/E/00033 with date of issue and issuing office mentioned without redaction
5. the entire documentation, including letters, memos, and communication of the Institute, including but not limited to, communication with law enforcement and any other entity, pertaining to
(a) FIR No. 494 dated 13/11/2021 at Chaturshringi Police Station, Pune, and
(b) FIR No. 241 dated 20/04/2022 at SIDCUL Police Station, Haridwar.
5.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 03.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. Kindly refer to the report sent to you in response to your RTI Application number ISERP/R/E/23/00033.
2. Refer reply to 01 above.
3. Please refer to the email dated 18/12/2023 from the Institute in this regard.
4. A copy of the Committees reports has already been sent to you. The names of the members cannot be disclosed as they fall under personal information and are denied as per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005.Page 6 of 52
5. Kindly refer to the order number IISER-P/VT/RO dated 17/03/2022 already send to you and the committees proceedings sent in response to your RTI application number ISERP/R/E/23/00033.
5.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.01.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 08.02.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
5.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.03.2024 Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/613295
6. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
Please send a copy of
1. the videographic recording of the committee hearing on 28 January 2022 as mentioned in IISER-P/VT/RO dated 17 March 2022. The information may be sent either to the applicant's email id or as a physical copy to the applicant's address mentioned with this application.
2. the report of the aforementioned committee as submitted on 25 Feb 2022. See supporting document for reference.
6.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 03.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. The same can be accessed through the following google drive link https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1nmMWnT7u0rYrBp5Wtz7FYWbMbbTolnL m?usp=drive_link . Permissions have been given to the above mentioned email id.
2. Copy of the Committee's reports (both) has already been sent to you vide reply to your RTI application number ISERP/R/E/23/00033.Page 7 of 52
6.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.01.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 08.02.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
6.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 27.03.2024 Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/613296
7. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
Please furnish a copy of the following documentation of IISER Pune.
1. The entire documentation pertaining to and substantiative of the letter from IISER Pune administration dated 18/12/2023 addressed to the applicant, see supporting document page 1.
2. the entire documentation pertaining to and substantiative of IISER- P/Ph.D./20163495/1, see supporting document page 2.
3. the entire documentation pertaining to, substantiative of, pursuant to and subsequent to the letter from IISER Pune administration dated 28/09/2021 addressed to the applicant, see supporting document page 5.
4. the entire documentation pertaining to, substantiative of, and pursuant to IISER- P/Ph.D./20163495/5, see supporting document page 6.
5. the entire documentation pertaining to, substantiative of, and pursuant to IISER-
P/Ph.D./20163495/2022 dt 14/03/2022, see supporting document page 7. ..., etc./ other related information 7.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
Page 8 of 521. Kindly refer to the email dated 18 December 2023, addressed to you by the Institute Administration. No other information is available in this regard.
2. Official orders and the committee's reports are already/are being shared with you. No other information is available in this regard.
3. Refer to Committee Report Annexure 02. No other information is available in this regard. The names of the members are hidden as they fall under personal information and cannot be disclosed as per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005.
4. Official orders, along with the committee's reports, are already/are being shared with you. No other information is available in this regard.
5. Official orders, along with the committee's reports, are already/are being shared with you. No other information is available in this regard. Etc. 7.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.01.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 16.02.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
7.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 27.03.2024 Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/613298
8. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
Referring to the letter from IISER Pune administration ([email protected]) dated 18/12/2023 addressed to the applicant (see supporting document), please furnish the following information,
1. the identity of the investigating authority or agency that found the appeal to be incorrect or baseless, along with their communication address Page 9 of 52
2. a copy of the report of any such authority wherein the said incorrectness/baselessness has been mentioned, so that appropriate corrections or substantiations may be duly made in the interest of justice,
3. a copy of the report of any such authority wherein the said incorrectness/baselessness has been substantiated.
Please note that the appeal in question is made in the pursuit of justice and safety, and pertains to matters of utmost seriousness and urgency. The appeal raises significant concerns regarding the integrity and ethical conduct of the Institute administration, and must not be dismissed on inconsequential grounds or trivial pretexts by the Institute.
8.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Kindly refer to the email dated 18 December 2023, addressed to you by the Institute Administration. No other information is available in this regard."
8.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.01.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 16.02.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
8.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 27.03.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/613447
9. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
Ref. the letter from IISER Pune Administration dated 18/12/2023 attached as supporting document. In the context of this letter please furnish the following information Page 10 of 52
1. a copy of the entire documentation legally substantiating the assertions made therein,
2. a copy of the entire documentation considered by the authoring authority to arrive at the assertions made therein,
3. information regarding all the documentation/substantiation required by the Institute to consider further action on the appeal under question,
4. copy of the report of investigation that found the appeal under question to be incorrect, along with the entire relevant documentation/substantiation of this assertion,
5. copy of the report of investigation that found the appeal under question to be baseless, along with the entire relevant documentation/substantiation of this assertion, ..., etc./ other related information 9.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Kindly refer to the email dated 18 December 2023, addressed to you by the Institute Administration. No other information is available in this regard."
9.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.01.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 16.02.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
9.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 27.03.2024 Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/613448
10. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:
Page 11 of 52 Please provide a copy of
1. all the complaints and grievances raised by the applicant to the Institute from June 2021 to Dec 2023,
2. the entire documentation pertaining to these complaints and grievances available at the institute,
3. the reports of actions taken on these complaints and grievances,
4. the entire documentation substantiating these reports,
5. the entire correspondence of the Institute with law and justice officials regarding FIR 494/2021 (Chaturshringi PS Pune) and FIR 241/2022 (SIDCUL PS Haridwar) and any other such correspondence pertaining to the applicant. 10.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. The Institute has received around 44 RTI applications and 31 applications under the PG portal as per the website until Dec 2023 from the applicant, which accounts for an approximate total of 280 pages, action report/action history copies of which can be provided on a deposit of additional fees for printing and postage. The same can also be referred to from the portal directly.
2. Refer to the applications under query 01.
3. Refer to the applications under query 01.
4. Refer to the applications under query 01.
5. The Institute has not raised any FIR against the applicant. 10.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.01.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 16.02.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
10.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 27.03.2024.Page 12 of 52
Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/618762
11. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:
Please furnish the following information regarding the hearing of the applicant by the committee chaired by Prof. Chaitra Redkar on 28/01/2022:
1. the minutes of the said hearing,
2. the videographic recording of the said hearing,
3. all the reports of the committee pursuant to this hearing. 11.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. Kindly refer to the report shared in response to your RTI application number ISERP/R/E/23/00065 dated 22.12.2023.
2. Recording has already been sent to you in response to your RTI application via the Google Drive link on 03.01.2024.
3. Refer to reply 01 above.
11.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.01.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 22.02.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
11.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 04.05.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/618851
12. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
1. Please provide all the substantiating documents pertaining to IISER-
P/Ph.D./20163495/5 dated 28/02/2022 available at the institute.
Page 13 of 522. Please provide all the substantiating documents pertaining to IISER- P/Ph.D./20163495/2022 dated 14/03/2022 available at the institute. 12.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. Kindly refer to the report shared in response to your RTI application number ISERP/R/E/23/00065 dated 22.12.2023 and letter No. IISER-P/Ph.D/20163495/4 dated 4 January 2022 issued to you (copy enclosed).
2. Kindly refer to order number IISER-P/Ph.D./20163495/5 dated 28th February 2022, which is referred to in your query 01 above.
12.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.01.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 22.02.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
12.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 05.05.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/618852
13. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
With reference to IISER-P/Ph.D./20163495/1, please provide the following information:
1. the documentation available at the institute substantiating that the applicant was provided an opportunity of appeal,
2. all the documentation available at the institute substantiating that the applicant was provided with all the material submitted as evidence against him in the related complaint, Page 14 of 52
3. all the documentation available at the institute substantiating that the applicant was informed of all the arguments submitted against him in the related complaint.
13.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Kindly refer to the official orders issued to you IISER-P/Ph.D./20163495/1, IISERP/Ph.D./20163495/2 and IISER-P/015/RO (Aug 23, 2021)"
13.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.01.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 22.02.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
13.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 05.05.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/618853
14. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
With reference to IISER-P/Ph.D./20163495/2, please provide the following information:
1. All the documentation available at the institute substantiating that the applicant was provided an opportunity of appeal,
2. all the documentation available at the institute substantiating that the applicant was provided with all the material submitted as evidence against him in the related complaint,
3. all the documentation available at the institute substantiating that the applicant was informed of all the arguments submitted against him in the related complaint.Page 15 of 52
14.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 23.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as der :-
"Kindly refer to the official orders issued to you IISER-P/Ph.D./20163495/1, IISERP/Ph.D./20163495/2 and IISER-P/015/RO (Aug 23, 2021)."
14.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.01.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 23.02.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
14.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 05.05.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624328
15. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
1. With reference to the email from the institute administration to the applicant dated 18/12/2023 as mentioned in the reply to request no. ISERP/R/E/23/00056 under RTI Act 2005, please furnish the following information: a copy of the original documents available with the institute, if any, substantiating each and every clause of the said email, including the approval of the Chairperson, Board of Governors, IISER Pune, as mentioned in the said email.
2. With reference to the reply given by the institute to point 2 of request no.
ISERP/R/E/23/00033 under RTI Act 2005, please provide the following information: the dates of the furnished documents, namely, the reports of both the committees.
15.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 02.02.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. Kindly refer to the email dated 18 December 2023, addressed to you by the Institute Administration.Page 16 of 52
2. Committee Report 01 dated 23 June 2021 Committee Report 02 dated 29 Dec 2021 15.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.02.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 01.03.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
15.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.06.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624330
16. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
1. With reference to FIR No. 494/2021 dt. 13/11/2021 filed at Chaturshringi Police Station, Pune, in which the then security officer of the institute, Avinash Abhale, is a witness, please furnish the following information: (a) a copy of the entire documentation available with the institute and Avinash Abhale, justifying his being a witness in the case, (b) a copy of the order of the institute, if any, mandating or allowing this action, (c) a copy of the entire communication of the institute with the police pertaining to this FIR. Please note that the police investigation in this matter is completed and the above information is sought urgently in the interests of justice.
2. Please provide a copy of the entire substantiating documentation available at the institute substantiating and legally justifying the following: (a) IISER-
P/Ph.D./20163495/1, (b) IISER-P/Ph.D./20163495/2, (c) IISER- P/Ph.D./20163495/3, (d) IISER-P/Ph.D./20163495/4, (e) IISER- P/Ph.D./20163495/5, (f) IISER-P/015/RO dt. 23/08/2021, (g) IISER-P/015/RO dt. 12/11/2021, (h) Letter to Shri J K Tyagi dt. 10/11/2021, (i) IISER-P/015/RO dt.
Page 17 of 5223/11/2021. () IISER-P/Ph.D./20163495/2022 dt. 14/03/2022, (k) IISER-P/VT/RO dt. 17/03/2022, and (I) IISER-P/015/VT/RO dt. 25/05/2022.
3. Please provide a copy of the entire documentation pertaining to and reports of the actions taken pursuant to the following letters from the applicant to the institute administration: (a) reply to show cause notice, dt. 07/09/2021, (b) reply to show cause notice, dt. 09/09/2021, (c) letter to dean.sa dt. 30/10/2021, see supporting document page 1, (d) communication with IISER-P admin dt. 07-09/11/2021, see supporting doc. pp. 2-3, (e) communication with IISER-P admin dt. 13/11/2021, see supporting doc. pp. 4-5, (f) letter to RO dt. 24/11/2021, see supporting doc. pp. 6-8, (g) complaint to dean.sa and adean.cosca dt. 11/03/2022, see supporting doc. pp. 9-15, (h) reminder to RO dt. 01/06/2022, see supporting doc. p. 16, (i) reply to defamation notice, dt. 26/05/2022, see supporting doc. pp. 16-17, (j) letter dt. 02/06/2022 submitting evidence to the committee, see supporting doc. p. 18, (k) letter to the committee and RO, dt. 02/06/2022, see supporting doc. p. 19, (1) letter to RO dt. 03/06/2022, see supporting doc. p. 20, (m) reminder to RO dt. 13/06/2022, see supporting doc. p. 21, (n) reminder to admin. dt. 27/06/2022, see supporting doc. pp. 22-24, and (o) complaint to RO dt. 27/06/2022, see supporting doc. pp. 25-26.
16.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 23.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. Mr. Avinash Abhale has not been a witness against the applicant.
2. Reports of the Committee, along with official orders, have already been issued to you. There is no further information available in this regard.
3. Reports of the Committee, along with official orders, have already been issued to you. There is no further information available in this regard.Page 18 of 52
16.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.02.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 01.03.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
16.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.06.2024 Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624331
17. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
1. With reference to FIR No. 494/2021 dt. 13/11/2021 filed at Chaturshringi Police Station, Pune, in which the then security officer of the institute, Avinash Abhale, is a witness, please furnish the following information: (a) a copy of the entire documentation available with the institute and Avinash Abhale, justifying his being a witness in the case, (b) a copy of the order of the institute, if any, mandating or allowing this action, (c) a copy of the entire communication of the institute with the police pertaining to this FIR. Please note that the police investigation in this matter is completed and the above information is sought urgently in the interests of justice.
2. Please provide a copy of the entire substantiating documentation available at the institute substantiating and legally justifying the following: (a) IISER-
P/Ph.D./20163495/1, (b) IISER-P/Ph.D./20163495/2, (c) IISER- P/Ph.D./20163495/3, (d) IISER-P/Ph.D./20163495/4, (e) IISER- P/Ph.D/20163495/5, (1) IISER-P/015/RO dt. 23/08/2021, (g) IISER-P/015/RO dt. 12/11/2021, (h) Letter to Shri J K Tyagi dt. 10/11/2021, (i) IISER-P/015/RO dt. 23/11/2021, (1) IISER-P/Ph.D./20163495/2022 dt. 14/03/2022, (k) IISER- P/VT/RO dt. 17/03/2022, and (1) IISER-P/015/VT/RO dt. 25/05/2022.
Page 19 of 523. Please provide a copy of the entire documentation pertaining to and reports of the actions taken pursuant to the following letters from the applicant to the institute administration: (a) reply to show cause notice, dt. 07/09/2021, (b) reply to show cause notice, dt. 09/09/2021, (c) letter to dean.sa dt. 30/10/2021, see supporting document page 1, (d) communication with IISER-P admin dt. 07-09/11/2021, see supporting doc. pp. 2-3, (e) communication with IISER-P admin dt. 13/11/2021, see supporting doc. pp. 4-5, (f) letter to RO dt. 24/11/2021, see supporting doc. pp. 6-8, (g) complaint to dean.sa and adean.cosca dt. 11/03/2022, see supporting doc. pp. 9-15, (h) reminder to RO dt. 01/06/2022, see supporting doc. p. 16, (i) reply to defamation notice, dt. 26/05/2022, see supporting doc. pp. 16-17, (j) letter dt. 02/06/2022 submitting evidence to the committee, see supporting doc. p. 18, (k) letter to the committee and RO, dt. 02/06/2022, see supporting doc. p. 19, (1) letter to RO dt. 03/06/2022, see supporting doc. p. 20, (m) reminder to RO dt. 13/06/2022, see supporting doc. p. 21, (n) reminder to admin, dt. 27/06/2022, see supporting doc. pp. 22-24, and (o) complaint to RO dt. 27/06/2022, see supporting doc. pp. 25-26.
17.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 23.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. Mr. Avinash Abhale has not been a witness against the applicant.
2. Reports of the Committee, along with official orders, have already been issued to you. There is no further information available in this regard.
3. Reports of the Committee, along with official orders, have already been issued to you. There is no further information available in this regard. 17.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.02.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 01.03.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.Page 20 of 52
17.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.06.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624332
18. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:
With reference to the letters furnished in reply to request reg. no.
ISERP/R/E/23/00033 under the RTI Act 2005, please furnish the following information:
1. the dates on these letters, and
2. any documentation available at the Institute which substantiates these letters. 18.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 23.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Committee Report 01 dated 23 June 2021 Committee Report 02 dated 29 Dec 2021"
18.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.02.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 01.03.2024 stated as under: -
1. Report 01 is of the Committee meeting dated 25th June 2021 as mentioned on the report.
Report 02 is dated as 29 December 2021
2. Report 01 - Kindly refer to the Office Order IISER-P/Ph.D./20163495/1 dated June 30, 2021 issued to you in this regard.
Report 02 - Committee meeting to Examine the response received from you on the Show Cause Noce IISER-P/015/RO dated November 12th 2021. 18.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.06.2024.
Page 21 of 52Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624333
19. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. With reference to the report dt. 25 Mar 2022 furnished by the Institute in reply to RTI appeal no. ISERP/A/E/24/00002, please provide the following information:
(a) the identity of the individuals accusing the applicant for outraging the modesty of women, so that appropriate legal proceedings u/s 211 of IPC can be initiated against them. (b) The record of any action or litigation pursued by the Institute against the individuals making these accusations.
2. With reference to the report dt. 23 June 2022 furnished by the Institute in reply to RTI request no. ISERP/R/E/23/00033, please provide the following information:
(a) the identity of the individuals responsible for fabricating and falsifying this record. (b) The record of any action or litigation pursued by the Institute against the criminal(s).
19.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. The report shared is of the Committee Meeting held on 28 Jan 2022 as mentioned on the report. Kindly refer to the order number IISER-P/VT/RO dt. 17/03/2022 issued to you post the above committee reports. The names of the members cannot be disclosed as it falls under personal information and is denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005. No other information is available in this regard.
2. The report shared is of the Committee Meeting held on 25 Jan 2022 as mentioned on the report. Kindly refer to the order number IISER-P/VT/RO dt. 17/03/2022 issued to you post the above committee reports. The names of the members cannot be disclosed as it falls under personal information and is denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005. No other information is available in this regard.Page 22 of 52
19.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.03.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 08.04.2024 observed as under: -
"Discussions in both the above committee meetings were in presence of all the three applicants and the decisions were conveyed accordingly. No more information is available in this regard."
19.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.06.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624335
20. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
1. With reference to the report dt. 25 Feb 2022 furnished by the Institute in reply to RTI appeal no. ISERP/A/E/24/00002, please provide the following information:
(a) the identity of the individuals accusing the applicant for outraging the modesty of women, so that appropriate legal proceedings u/s 211 of IPC can be initiated against them. (b) The record of any action or litigation pursued by the Institute against the individuals making these accusations.
2. With reference to the report dt. 23 June 2021 furnished by the Institute in reply to RTI request no. ISERP/R/E/23/00033, please provide the following information:
(a) the identity of the individuals responsible for fabricating and falsifying this record. (b) The record of any action or litigation pursued by the Institute against the criminal(s).
20.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. The report shared is of the Committee Meeting held on 28 Jan 2022 as mentioned on the report. Kindly refer to the order number IISER-P/VT/RO dt. 17/03/2022 Page 23 of 52 issued to you post the above committee reports. The names of the members cannot be disclosed as it falls under personal information and is denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005. No other information is available in this regard.
2. The report shared is of the Committee Meeting held on 25 June 2021 as mentioned on the report. Kindly refer to the order number IISER-P/VT/RO dt. 17/03/2022 issued to you post the above committee reports. The names of the members cannot be disclosed as it falls under personal information and is denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005. No other information is available in this regard. 20.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.03.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 08.04.2024 observed as under: -
"Discussions in both the above committee meetings were in presence of all the three applicants and the decisions were conveyed accordingly. No more information is available in this regard."
20.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.06.2024 Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624337
21. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
(i) The supporting document (pp. 1-2) contains a list of documents submitted in the final report of FIR 494/21 at Chaturshringi police station, and includes the documents received by the police from IISER Pune regarding the matter.
However, these documents do not include the letters sent by the applicant to the IISER administration in his defence and to outline the corrupt and criminal activities of several members of the institute, including the complainant in the above-mentioned FIR. The applicant wants to know whether this omission was made by the police or by IISER administration itself, and has therefore asked the Page 24 of 52 institute to furnish a copy of these documents through multiple RTI requests in the past, e.g., ISERP/R/E/23/00050 and ISERP/R/E/23/00058. However, on each of these occasions, the institute has replied with irrelevant statements, whether out of stupidity or criminal intent the applicant cannot say. However, the applicant can make another request, which he does so here. Please furnish a copy of these documents.
21.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"The Institute has not registered any FIR against the applicant.
21.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.03.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 08.04.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
21.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.06.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624339
22. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
(i) With reference to the report of the first committee as furnished by the institute in reply to ISERP/R/E/23/00033, it is to be noted that this report mentions the events pertaining and subsequent to a hearing on 25 June 2021, but the report itself was fabricated on 23 June 2021, before any such hearing took place, as mentioned in multiple RTI replies from the Institute, and is therefore a forged document as defined in section 470 of the IPC. The institute is also aware that the committee and any person responsible for making this report has committed a cognizable offence under sections 469 and 199 of the IPC. The institute has not Page 25 of 52 informed the applicant of the identity of the offender(s). The applicant is therefore assuming that the institute has already filed an FIR against the said offender(s), otherwise this withholding of information is a criminal offence under section 212, 201-204 and 471 of the IPC on part of the institute administration and the information and vigilance officers. It is in this context that the applicant again requests the record of any action or litigation or FIR filed against the said offender(s) by the Institute administration being fully aware of the commission of a criminal offence. Please provide it.
22.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"The report is of the Committee meeting held on 25 June 2021, as mentioned on the report."
22.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.03.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 08.04.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
22.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.06.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624341
23. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
With reference to IISER-P/Ph.D./20163495/1 dt. 30 June 2021, please furnish all the documents available at the institute indicating
(a) that Mr. Viplove Tyagi (applicant herein) was informed of the complaint made against him prior to this order, Page 26 of 52
(b) that the applicant was informed of the charges levelled against him prior to this order,
(c) that the applicant was made aware of any material on which the complaint was based prior to this order,
(d) that the committee verified this material prior to this order,
(e) that the applicant saw Mr. Bhowmik, the complainant, as a romantic rival, and the committee's verification thereof, ..., etc./ other related information 23.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"The office order number IISER-P/Ph.D./20163495/1 dt. 30 June 2021 has been issued to you as approved by the then Competent Authority of the Institute based on the recommendations in the Committee meeting dated 25 June 2021. The report of the same has already been shared with you through multiple RTI applications. Further you may refer to the office order number IISER-P/Ph.D/20163495/2 dt. 28 July 2021 and the Show Cause Notice number IISER-P/015/RO dated November 12, 2021, issued to you."
23.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.03.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 08.04.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
23.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.06.2024 Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624343
24. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
Page 27 of 52 With reference to IISER-P/Ph.D./20163495/2 dt. 28 July 2021, please furnish all the documents available at the institute indicating
(a) that the applicant was informed of the complaint made against him prior to this order,
(b) that the applicant was informed of the charges levelled against him prior to this order,
(c) that the applicant was made aware of any material on which the complaint was based prior to this order,
(d) that this material substantiated the complaint, and the committee's verification thereof,
(e) that the committee provided the applicant any opportunity of appeal, and
(f) that any action was taken by the institute against Ms. Sharma for making UNSUBSTANTIATED allegations which threatened the dignity, modesty, and reputation of the applicant, or that she was ordered to apologise, as the applicant was ordered in IISER-P/Ph.D./20163495/5.
24.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"The office order number IISER-P/Ph.D./20163495/2 dt. 28 July 2021 has been issued to you subsequent to office order number IISER-P/Ph.D./20163495/1 dated 30 June 2021 as approved by the then Competent Authority of the Institute based on the recommendations in the Committee meeting dated 25 June 2021. Further, you may refer to the Show Cause Notice number IISER-P/015/RO dated November 12, 2021, issued to you."
24.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.03.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 08.04.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Page 28 of 5224.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.06.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624345
25. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:
Please provide any information or documentation available at the institute indicating
1. That any complaint has been made against the applicant by any woman for outraging her modesty anywhere or at any point of me,
2. That the complainant(s) provided any substantiation of the said allegation if such a complaint has been made solely to the institute,
3. That the applicant was informed of the above complaint made against him at any point of me by the institute,
4. That the complaint is made by the female members of the second committee mentioned in IISER-P/VT/RO dt. 17 Mar 2022, and by no other person.
25.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 13.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Kindly refer to the report shared of the Committee Meeting held on 28 Jan 2022 and the order number IISER-P/Ph.D./20163495/5 dt. Feb 28, 2022.
25.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.03.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 08.04.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
25.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.06.2024.Page 29 of 52
Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624346
26. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
With reference to the letter dated 18 Dec 2023 from the institute administration ([email protected]) to the applicant, please provide the following information:
1) The individuals responsible for making, transmitting, and approving the said letter, and
2) All the documents that legally justify the formation of this letter. Please also note that
(a) previous RTI replies from the institute have established that the said letter is a false document as defined in sec. 464, a false declaration as defined in sec. 199, and an abetment of a criminal offence as defined in sec. 107 of the IPC,
(b) suppressing the identity of the individuals responsible for this letter is a criminal offence as defined in sec. 212 of the IPC, and
(c) producing this document as true in an RTI reply is a criminal offence as defined in secs. 200 and 464 of the IPC.
26.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 18.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Kindly refer to the email from the Institute administration dated 18 December 2023 addressed to you in response to your appeal dated 9th Oct 2023. The response is in consultation with the authorities of the Institute and has the approval of the Chairperson, Board of Governors of the Institute, as stated in the email. There is no more information available in this regard.
26.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.03.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, Page 30 of 52 false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 17.04.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
26.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.06.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624348
27. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
1) With reference to the first committee report dt. 23 June 2021 furnished by the institute in reply to ISERP/R/E/23/00033, please provide
(a) a list of all the documents and material evidence substantiating this report,
(b) a copy, wherever possible, of all the documents and material evidence substantiating this report, and
(c) for each redaction or omission in this reply, appropriate grounds for the denial of information, ref. sec. 7(8)(i) of the RTI Act 2005.
2) With reference to the committee report dt. 25 Feb 2022 furnished by the institute in reply to ISERP/A/E/24/00003, please provide
(a) a list of all the documents and material evidence substantiating this report,
(b) a copy, wherever possible, of all the documents and material evidence substantiating this report, and
(c) for each redaction or omission in this reply, appropriate grounds for the denial of information, ref. sec. 7(8)(i) of the RTI Act 2005.
27.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
1. The report shared is of the Committee Meeting held on 25 June 2021 as mentioned on the report. You may refer to Office Order number IISER-
P/Ph.D/20163495/1 dated June 30, 2021, No. IISER-P/Ph.D./20163495/2 Page 31 of 52 dated July 28, 2021 and the Show Cause Noce IISERP/015/RO dated August 23 2021 issued to you post the committee meeting.
2. The report shared is of the Committee Meeting held on 28 Jan 2022 as mentioned on the report. You may refer to the Office Order number IISER- P/Ph.D./20163495/5 dated February 28, 2022, No. IISER- P/Ph.D./20163495/2022 dated March 14, 2022 and Order no. IISER-P/VT/RO dt. 17/03/2022 issued to you post the above committee report. Also, the recording of the entire meeting has been shared with you in response to your RTI application number ISERP/R/E/23/00059 dated 04.12.2023. No other information is available in this regard.
27.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.03.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 18.04.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
27.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.06.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624349
28. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
1) With reference to the letter dt. 18 Dec 2023 from [email protected] to the applicant, please provide
(a) A list of all the documents and material evidence substantiating this letter,
(b) A copy, wherever possible, of all the documents and material evidence substantiating this letter, and
(c) For each redaction or omission in this reply, appropriate grounds for the denial of information, ref. sec. 7(8)(i) of the RTI Act 2005.
Page 32 of 522) Please provide a copy of all the reports of actions taken by the board of governors/administration of the institute on the complaints and appeals of the applicant from June 2021 till date, by sending it to the email provided with this application. For each redaction or omission in this reply, appropriate grounds for the denial of information must be provided.
3) Please provide a copy of all the committee reports involving the applicant, by sending it to the email provided with this application. For each redaction or omission in this reply, appropriate grounds for the denial of information must be provided. Further note that section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005 does not exempt the names of any public authority, or any individual involved in any public activity or interest, to be produced under this act. This includes member of any committee and official signatory of any document. Sec. 8(1) of this act also dictates that //the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person//, which takes precedence over 8(1) (a)-(j).
28.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
1. Kindly refer to the email from the Institute administration dated 18 December 2023 addressed to you in response to your appeal dated 9th Oct 2023, the response is in consultation with the authorities of the Institute and has an approval of the Chairperson, Board of Governors of the Institute as stated on the email. There is no more information available in this regard.
2. Official orders/notices/committee reports have already been sent to you via multiple RTI requests.Page 33 of 52
3. All reports of the committee meetings held in this regard, along with official orders, have already been issued to you. There is no further information available in this regard.
28.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.03.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 18.04.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
28.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.06.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624350
29. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
Please provide all the documents available with the institute indicating the following:
1) That Sh. Viplove Tyagi, applicant in this query, had been duly informed of annexure 2 (produced in reply to RTI query ISERP/R/E/23/00065),
2) That the applicant was provided with sufficient material for him to take a legal recourse in the possibility of false complaints and fabrication against him, and to prevent further injury,
3) That the applicant was given an equal opportunity to refuse to participate in the proceedings leading to IISER-P/PhD/20163495/1 and IISER-
P/PhD/20163495/2, just like other students were given, as in annexure 2 mentioned above, when the applicant raised his complaints through letters dt. 07/03/2021 and 03/09/2021. Please further provide the following information:
4) A copy of any statuette or policy or code of the institute that dictates the aforementioned preferential treatment of different students,
5) The date of issue of the aforementioned annexure 2, and Page 34 of 52
6) The committee and signatories mentioned in annexure 2.
Please note that the identity of the concerned individuals is NOT exempted from disclosure in 8(j) of the RTI Act 2005. Further provide the following information:
9) The reports of both the committees mentioned in IISER-P/VT/RO dt. 17 Mar 2022 without any redaction or omission, and
10) In case of any redaction or omission in any of the above documents, the grounds for denial of information.
29.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Reply 01: The document shared as Annexure 02 in response to the RTI query no. ISERP/R/E/23/00065 is a copy of the committee recommendations which was appointed to look into the response to the Show Cause Noce no. IISER- P/015/RO dated August 23, 2021. The committee met virtually on 15 September and 20 September 2021 and in person on 21 September 2021. The names of the members cannot be disclosed since it is a personal information as per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005. Since there was a disagreement from either of the pares, the arbitration was not completed.
Reply 02: The office order number IISER-P/Ph.D./20163495/1 dt. 30 June 2021 has been issued to you as approved by the then Competent Authority of the Institute based on the recommendations in the Committee meeting dated 25 June 2021. Office order number IISERP/Ph.D./20163495/2 was issued to you based on the recommendations shared in the above office order and further course of action.
Reply 03: No Information available.
Reply 04: Refer reply 01 above.Page 35 of 52
Reply 05: Report 01 of the Committee meeting held on 25th June 2021 may be referred to in the Annexure sent in response to your RTI REQUEST No. ISERP/R/E/23/00033. Report 02 of the Committee meeting held on 28th Jan 2022 may be referred to in the Annexure sent in response to your RTI REQUEST No. ISERP/R/E/23/00065.
The names of the members cannot be disclosed since it is a personal information as per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005.
29.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.03.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 22.04.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
29.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.06.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624351
30. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
1) With reference to Office Order IISER-P/PhD/20163495/1, dated 30 June 2021, please furnish the following information:
(a) any documentation/transcription indicating that prior to this order, the applicant Viplove Tyagi was informed of the complaints made by Rajdeep Bhowmik,
(b) any documentation indicating that prior to this order, the applicant was provided with the material evidence put against him,
(c) any documentation indicating that the applicant was informed, prior to this order, that he is an accused in any matter and that he needs to defend himself against any allegation, Page 36 of 52
(d) any documentation indicating that prior to this order, the applicant was informed of any complaint made by Vandana Sharma herself.
2) With reference to Office Order IISER-P/PhD/20163495/2, please furnish the following information:
(a) any documentation/transcription indicating that prior to this order, the applicant was informed of the complaints made against him,
(b) any documentation indicating that prior to this order, the applicant was provided with the material evidence put against him,
(c) any documentation indicating that the applicant was informed, prior to this order, that he is an accused in any matter and that he needs to defend himself against any allegation pertaining to this order.
30.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
1. The Office Order IISER-P/PhD/20163495/1 dated 30 June 2021 was issued based on the Committee meeting held on 25th June 2021 wherein you were also present. The minutes may be referred to in the Annexure sent in response to your RTI request no. ISERP/R/E/23/00033.
2. The Office order number IISER-P/Ph.D./20163495/2 was issued to you based on the recommendations shared in the office order number IISER-
P/Ph.D./20163495/1 and further course of action.
30.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal date 22.03.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 22.04.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
30.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.06.2024.
Page 37 of 52Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624352
31. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
Please provide all the documents available with the institute indicating the following:
1) That Sh. Viplove Tyagi (applicant of this query) was informed of annexure 2 (produced in reply to RTI query ISERP/R/E/23/00065) in due me for him to take appropriate legal recourse.
2) That the applicant was provided with sufficient material for him to take a legal recourse in the possibility of false complaints and fabrication against him,
3) That the applicant was given an equal opportunity to refuse to participate in the proceedings leading to IISER-P/PhD/20163495/1 and IISER-
P/PhD/20163495/2, just like other students were given when the applicant raised his complaints through letters dt. 07/09/2021 and 09/09/2021. Please also furnish the following information:
4) A copy of any statute or policy or code of the institute that dictates the aforementioned preferential treatment of different students,
5) A copy of the research paper or academic article establishing the mathematical rule probably discovered by some great scientist at the institute that the administration of the institute, however full of idiotic individuals, can never commit a mistake,
6) In case no such mathematical rule exists, the due process to inform this administration of any such mistake, namely, a lapse in judgement by a committee or authority leading to injury, and Page 38 of 52
7) The due process to make this administration correct such mistakes. Please note that the due processes above refer to any statute/rule/policy/code/law of precedence or part thereof mandating these processes.
31.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Reply 01: The document shared as Annexure 02 in response to the RTI query no. ISERP/R/E/23/00065 is a copy of the committee recommendations which was appointed to look into the response to the Show Cause Noce no. IISER- P/015/RO dated August 23, 2021. The committee met virtually on 15 September and 20 September 2021 and in person on 21 September 2021. The names of the members cannot be disclosed since it is a personal information as per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005. Since there was a disagreement from either of the parties, the arbitration was not completed.
Reply 02: The office order number IISER-P/Ph.D./20163495/1 dt. 30 June 2021 has been issued to you as approved by the then Competent Authority of the Institute based on the recommendations in the Committee meeting dated 25 June 2021. Office order number IISERP/Ph.D./20163495/2 was issued to you based on the recommendations shared in the above office order and further course of action.
Reply 03: No Information available.
31.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.03.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 22.04.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
31.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.06.2024.Page 39 of 52
Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624353
32. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
With reference to the letter from the institute administration dated 18 Dec 2023 addressed to the applicant, please furnish a copy of the following documents:
1) The signed approval of the chair, board of governors, mentioned in the letter, if any,
2) The date of this approval, if there was any approval,
3) The identity of the individuals responsible for this false approval so that appropriate proceedings can be initiated against them,
4) The identity of the individuals responsible for this false letter so that appropriate proceedings can be initiated against them.
32.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 27.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Kindly refer to the email from the Institute administration dated 18 December 2023 addressed to you in response to your appeal dated 9th Oct 2023. The response is in consultation with the authorities of the Institute and has the approval of the Chairperson Board of Governors of the Institute, as stated in the email.
32.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.03.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 25.04.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
32.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.06.2024.Page 40 of 52
Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624354
33. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
Please provide the following information as per your records:
1) (a) The identity of the individuals legally accountable for the reports furnished by the institute in response to RTI query ISERP/R/E/23/00033,
(b) Complete reports and all supporting document(s) pertaining to these reports,
2) (a) The identity of the individuals legally accountable for the reports in annexure 01 and 02 of the reply to RTI query ISERP/R/E/23/00065,
(b) complete reports and any document(s) pertaining to these reports,
3) (a) the identity of the individuals legally accountable for the communication dated 18 Dec 2023 to the applicant from [email protected] with subject: Appeal, and for its contents,
(b) complete reports and all supporting document(s) pertaining to this communication,
4) Reasons for any omissions or redactions made in the replies given to any of the above queries, as mandated by sec. 7(8)(i) of the RTI Act 2005. Please further note that none of the information sought above is exempted from disclosure under sec. 8 (a - j) of the RTI Act 2005. The information concerns public documents related to public activity and public interest and is not personal information.
33.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Reply no.1: Report 01 is of the committee meeting held on 25 June 2021 wherein you were also present through Zoom. Report 02 is of the meeting held Page 41 of 52 on 13 December 2021, do refer to order no. IISER-P/Ph.D./20163495/4 dated January 04th, 2022 in this regard. Names of the members cannot be disclosed as it falls under Personal Information and is exempted under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005. There is no more information available in this regard.
Reply no.2: Report 01 is of the committee meeting held on 28 January 2022 wherein you were also present in person. Report 02 is a copy of the committee recommendations which was appointed to look into the response to the Show Cause Notice no. IISER-P/015/RO dated August 23, 2021. The committee met virtually on 15 September and 20 September 2021 and in person on 21 September 2021. The names of the members cannot be disclosed since it is a personal information as per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005. Since there was a disagreement from either of the pares, the arbitration was not completed. There is no more information available in this regard.
Reply no.3: Kindly refer to the email from the Institute administration dated 18 December 2023 addressed to you in response to your appeal dated 9th Oct 2023, the response is in consultation with the authorities of the Institute and has an approval of the Chairperson, Board of Governors of the Institute as stated on the email. There is no more information available in this regard.
Reply no.4: Kindly refer to the replies 01, 02 & 03 above.
33.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.04.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 16.05.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
33.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.06.2024.Page 42 of 52
Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624355
34. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
With reference to the committee report produced by the institute in annexure 02 of the reply to RTI query ISERP/R/E/23/00065, please provide the following information as per your records:
1) Documents indicating that Mr. Viplove Tyagi (applicant) was duly informed of this report and the decisions therein,
2) A copy of IISER-P/Security/40/2021 dated 10/11/2023 along with all attachments thereof,
3) Identity of the individuals responsible for framing IISER-P/Security/40/2021 dated 10/11/2023 against the decision of this committee,
4) Documents and reports of any action(s) taken by the institute against these individuals for acting contrary to the decision of the committee, for omission and suppression of evidence and various documents related to the matter (including statements and complaints made by the applicant in this regard), and for biased and false representation of facts regarding concerned events (which are criminal offences under secs. 196, 202 and 204 of the IPC, and defamation as defined in sec. 499 of this code) 34.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
1. The document shared as Annexure 02 in response to the RTI query no.
ISERP/R/E/23/00065 is a copy of the committee recommendations which was appointed to look into the response to the Show Cause Notice no. IISER- P/015/RO dated August 23, 2021. The committee met virtually on 15 September and 20 September 2021 and in person on 21 September 2021. The Page 43 of 52 names of the members cannot be disclosed since it is a personal information as per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005. Since there was a disagreement from either of the parties, the arbitration was not completed.
2. Letter IISER-P/Security/40/2021 dated 10/11/2021 was sent to the Cyber Police Station in response to their email notice dated 09 November 2021 seeking documents towards an FIR led. The copy of the email notice is enclosed. Further documents may be sourced from the Cyber Police Station, Pune City.
3. No document has been framed against the decision of the Committee.
4. No Information Available 34.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.04.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 16.05.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
34.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.06.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624357
35. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
1) With reference to the report of the first committee as furnished by the institute in reply to RTI query ISERP/R/E/23/00033, please provide the following information as per your records:
(a) the concerned department of the institute which drafted this report as true,
(b) the concerned department of the institute which kept/maintained this record as true, Page 44 of 52
(c) the concerned department of the institute which informs this record as true in RTI queries,
(d) the concerned authority/authorities of the institute which drafted this report as true,
(e) the concerned authority/authorities of the institute which kept/maintained this record as true,
(f) the concerned authority/authorities of the institute which informs this record as true in RTI queries.
2) Please provide the names and official communication details of the concerned authorities as per your records, or provide the reason for not doing so.
3) With reference to annexure 02 furnished by the institute in reply to RTI query ISERP/R/E/23/00065, please provide the following information as per your records:
(a) the concerned department of the institute responsible for drafting this record, (b) the concerned department of the institute responsible for maintaining this record as true,
(b) the identity of the committee members as mentioned in this annexure, which information is NOT exempted under 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act,
(c) the report of the previous committee dated 26/06/2021 as mentioned in this annexure.
4) With reference to the report of the second committee as furnished by the institute in reply to RTI query ISERP/R/E/23/00033, please provide the full reports and documents of this committee without any redactions
5) For any omission or redaction of information given in reply to the above queries, please list these omissions and provide appropriate reasons thereof under 7(8)(i) of the RTI Act.Page 45 of 52
35.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 08.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
1. The report shared is of the Committee Meeting held on 25 June 2021 as mentioned on the report wherein you were also present over zoom. Recording of the above meeting has been shared with you vide your RTI application no.
ISERP/R/E/24/00028. Kindly refer to the office order no. IISER- P/Ph.D./20163495/1 dt. June 30, 2021 issued to you post the above committee meeting. No other information is available in this regard.
2. All the official orders/notices has been issued to you by the Registrar of the Institute with approval of the then Competent Authority as per the recommendations of the committee members. The names cannot be disclosed since it is a personal information as per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005.
3. The document shared as Annexure 02 in response to the RTI query no. ISERP/R/E/23/00065 is a copy of the committee recommendations which was appointed to look into the response to the Show Cause Noce no. IISER- P/015/RO dated August 23, 2021. The committee met virtually on 15 September and 20 September 2021 and in person on 21 September 2021. The names of the members cannot be disclosed since it is a personal information as per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005. Since there was a disagreement from either of the pares, the arbitration was not completed. The report of the previous committee may be referred to in the Annexure sent in response to your RTI REQUEST No. ISERP/R/E/23/00033 which is of the meeting held on 25 June 2021.
4. The entire report including the point of reference of the committee recommendations shared previously with you is enclosed herewith. The names of the members cannot be disclosed since it is a personal information as per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005.
5. No Information Available.
Page 46 of 5235.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.04.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 16.05.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
35.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.06.2024.
36. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Sreejit Marar, Section Officer, attended the hearing through video conference.
37. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant filed multiple RTI applications seeking copies of documents pertaining to a report of the committee, including personal details of the member of the committee on Institute's correspondence with Police w.r.t the FIR lodged against him etc. and all were responded as per the provision of the RTI Act and within time. He stated that in the instant set of appeals the appellant is again seeking similar information to which the CPIO's concerned has furnished suitable replies, as per their available records, to the appellant along with the relevant enclosures. Further, the Appellant has not been judicious in the use of the RTI Act and has been using it as a tool to harass the Public Authority. As on date he has filed 108 RTIs, 80 First Appeals and 60 Second Appeals as also 50 complaints in the CPGRAMS portal. All the written submissions of the respondent have been taken on record.
38. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that in all the cases the CPIO's concerned have provided appropriate replies to the RTI Applications as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letters dated 28.11.2023, 29.11.2023, 01.12.2023, 22.12.2023, 03.01.2024, 19.01.2024, 22.01.2024, 23.02.2024, 02.02.2024, 23.01.2024, 11.03.2024, 13.03.2024, 18.03.2024, 19.03.2024, 22.03.2024, 27.03.2024, 04.04.2024 Page 47 of 52 and 08.04.2024. The Commission also observes that in most of the instant cases the RTIs are repetitive. Moreover, in most of the RTI applications, the appellant has also sought clarification and opinion, as also requesting for non-specific information like 'All documents', if any, etc. which do not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011] date of judgment 09.08.2011. The following was thus held:
"....A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority......."
39. Further, the Commission observes that the appellant on grounds of his Second Appeals has challenged the correctness of the information provided by the CPIO's concerned. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 06.12.2023 in Narendra Tyagi vs Assistant Director (CPIO) [LPA 764/2023]. The following was thus held:
"13. Consequently, it is clear that dispute as regards the correctness of information provided under the RTI Act, or any other dispute or controversy, cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under the RTI Act. The CPIO is only required to supply all the information/documents within his access. Whether or not such information as provided by the CPIO under the RTI Act is incorrect in any manner, is not the domain of consideration or determination under the RTI proceedings."
40. Further, the Commission observes that the appellant is frequently filing RTI Applications on same or similar subject just to harass respondent public authority, which is purely against the spirit of the RTI Act. 2005. In this regard, attention is drawn to the Page 48 of 52 Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
'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 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.' Page 49 of 52 Further, the findings of the Commission in the instant set of matter largely point towards a misuse of the RTI Act being perpetuated by the appellant. Here, the appellant's attention is again invited towards certain precedents set by the superior Courts recognizing the misuse of the RTI Act: In ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
'39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.' In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto.' And, in the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that: '...xxx 'This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law.' Page 50 of 52
41. The Commission strongly advises the appellant to desist from filing multiple RTI Applications as his future appeals/complaints on the same or similar matter are liable to be summarily dismissed. The Respondents are also advised to take reference of the instant decision while dealing with any future RTI Applications of the Appellant on the same subject matter. The Commission finds no scope for further intervention in the matters. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 11.02.2025 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, M/o. Education, Indian Institute Of Science Education And Research (IISER), Pune, CPIO, RTI Cell, Dr. Homi Bhabha Road, Pune, MH-411008 2 Viplove Tyagi Page 51 of 52 Annexure of Second Appeals Sl. No. Second Appeal No. 1 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/604728 2 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/604729 3 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/604730 4 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/604732 5 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/610451 6 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/613295 7 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/613296 8 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/613298 9 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/613447 10 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/613448 11 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/618762 12 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/618851 13 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/618852 14 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/618853 15 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624328 16 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624330 17 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624331 18 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624332 19 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624333 20 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624335 21 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624337 22 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624339 23 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624341 24 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624343 25 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624345 26 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624346 27 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624348 28 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624349 29 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624350 30 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624351 31 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624352 32 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624353 33 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624354 34 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624355 35 CIC/ISERP/A/2024/624357 Page 52 of 52 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)