Central Information Commission
Masood Kausar vs Aligarh Muslim University on 25 May, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/ALMUV/A/2019/151599
Masood Kausar .....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Shia Theology,
Aligarh Muslim University,
RTI Cell, Aligarh - 202002. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24/05/2021
Date of Decision : 24/05/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12/04/2019
CPIO replied on : 11/05/2019
First appeal filed on : 27/05/2019
First Appellate Authority order : N.A.
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09/09/2019
Information sought:
1The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.04.2019 seeking information on twelve points related to the Ph.D candidates under supervisor Assistant professor Dr. Syed Mohd Asghar in the Department of Shia Theology;
1. "Disclose the date with all candidates names which done Ph.D yet under supervision of Dr. Syed Mohd Asghar.
2. Disclose the candidates topics and subject of Ph.D under the supervision of Dr. Syed Mohd Asghar.
3. Disclose the National and International Examiners names of candidates with year wise data .
4. Disclose the qualification and subject of Examiners whose checked the Ph.D candidates thesis and done their Degree under the supervision of Dr. Syed mohd Asghar.
5. Disclose the year wise data of Ph.D candidates and Interview dates of candidates under the supervision of Dr. Syed Mohd Asghar.
6. Disclose the Dates year wise of sending Details of Ph.D thesis of candidates which was send to international Examiners for checking purpose.
7. Disclose the Remarks if any on the Ph.D candidates thesis.
8. Provide Examiners Fare details to checking the all Degrees of Ph.D candidates under the supervision of Dr. Syed Mohd Asghar.
9. Disclose the criteria and process of Ph.D degree checking.
10. For the checking of Ph.D process International and National Examiners subject of Theology is necessary in examiners Qualifications.
11. Provide countries names of examiners which was belonged to and their qualification details.
12 Does the examiners also completed their Ph.D degree who was checked the candidates thesis."
The CPIO provided a point wise reply to the Appellant on 11.05.2019. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.05.2019. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
2The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Raza Naqvi, Assistant Professor & CPIO present through audio- conference.
The Appellant stated that desired information in response to RTI Application was never provided to him by the CPIO till date.
The CPIO submitted that timely point wise response along with available information was has already been given to the Appellant as per the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission based upon a perusal of facts on record observes that the queries raised by the Appellant on points no. 1 to 8, 10 & 11 of the RTI Application pertain to Ph.D candidates and their thesis related details which is personal information of third party and the same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The said observation is in line with a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.
Further, the query raised by the Appellant on point no. 12 of RTI Application is rather speculative and about seeking clarification which does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the Complainant/Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.
This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of 3 `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. 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. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, the CPIO has provided adequate reply and clarifications during the hearing keeping in line the letter and spirit of the RTI Act, thus, leaving no further scope of intervention at this stage on the aforesaid points.
Now, considering the prayer of the Appellant, the Commission finds that only limited scope of relief lies in point no. 9 of RTI Application. Thus, the CPIO is directed to provide a copy of readily available information indicating the criteria and process for checking Ph.D. degrees in the University, free of cost to the Appellant through speed/registered post. The said direction should be complied by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु त)) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5