Central Information Commission
Kalpana Maheshwari vs National Commission For Women (Ncw) on 19 February, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NCFWO/A/2025/613913
CIC/NCFWO/A/2025/623257
Kalpana Maheshwari ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: National Commission
for Women, New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
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. 613913 17.12.2024 13.01.2025 03.02.2025 24.02.2025 Nil.
2. 623257 03.04.2025 24.04.2025 25.04.2025 08.05.2025 Nil.
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar
RTI Applications and same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 17.02.2026
Date of Decision: 17.02.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
Page 1 of 6
Second Appeal No. CIC/NCFWO/A/2025/613913
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.12.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Coordination and Communication: a. Has the NCW written to the MHA and CBI regarding the above-mentioned FIR and case? If yes, kindly provide copies of all communications sent and received. b. Has NCW sought reports from the Government - MHA or CBI on actions taken in this case? If yes, kindly provide details and copies of such reports.
2. Recommendations Made by NCW: a. Did NCW recommend the issuance of Look-Out Corner Notices (LOC) for the accused in this case? If yes, kindly provide the date and details of the recommendation and its current status. b.
Has NCW recommended the issuance of summons abroad for the accused under Section 188, etc., of the CrPC, Passports Act, or other laws? If yes, please provide details.
3. Action towards a Coordinated Response: a. Has NCW coordinated with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) for delay in investigation and registration of FIR regarding this case? If yes, kindly provide details of such coordination and communications...etc. 1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 13.01.2025 and the same is reproduced as under :-
Point No. 1 to 6: Information Nil.
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.02.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 24.02.2025 observed as under :-Page 2 of 6
4. Now, on perusal of Appeal, it has been observed that you are not satisfied with the reply given by CPIO. Keeping this fact in view, CPIO is directed to provide clear point wise information in respect of RTI application dated 17.12.2024 filed by the appellant within 10 working days.
5. Therefore, your Appeal is disposed off.
1.3. In compliance of order of FAA, the PIO furnished reply dated 12.03.2025 as under:
Point No. 1 (a, b):- Please refer annexure- A. Point No. 2 (a, b):- Please refer annexure- B. Point No. 3 (a): As per record, no such communication/coordinated by NCW to concerned authority.
Point No. 4: As per record, no such report received from MEA/ CBI. However, action taken report received from SSP, Meerut, U. P. and CGI, San Francisco have been shared with the complainant Point No. 5 (a, b):- Please refer annexure- A, B & C. Point No. 6 (a, b); In this regard, no separate data maintain available with NCW 1.4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
1.5. A written submission dated 10.02.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Second Appeal No. CIC/NCFWO/A/2025/623257
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.04.2025 seeking information on the following points:
1. Copies of all official communications exchanged between NCW and MHA regarding the MLAT process in this case.Page 3 of 6
2. Details of any actions taken by NCW to ensure that MHA processes the MLAT request for evidence collection.
3. Records of any recommendations issued by NCW to MHA in case of dowry death, in this case.
4. Documents showing any correspondence or internal discussions within NCW regarding the issuance of a Look Out Circular (LOC) for the accused, Sumit Govindlal Binnani, as per legal provisions (referencing the Indian Embassy USA document on foreign legal provisions, Points 15 & 17).
5. Information on whether NCW has referred this matter to NHRC for human rights violations, given the prolonged delay in justice for a dowry death case.
6. Documents indicating whether NCW has contacted the accused's employer regarding the seriousness of the charges.
2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 24.04.2025 and the same is reproduced as under :-
Point No. 1 to 6: Information Nil. Hence can not provided 2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.04.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 08.05.2025 observed as under :-
4. Now, on perusal of Appeal, it has been observed that you are not satisfied with the reply given by CPIO. Keeping this fact in view, CPIO is directed to provide clear point wise information with inspect the concerned file records in respect of RTI application dated 17.12.2024 filed by the appellant within 15 working days.
5. Therefore, your Appeal is disposed off.
2.3. In compliance order of FAA, the PIO has furnished reply dated 19.05.2025 as under:Page 4 of 6
In this regard, you may please visit the office of National Commission for Women on any working day and inspect the concerned case file/documents and take the copies of the relevant pages on payment of requisite fee as per RTI Act, 2005.
2.4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
2.5. A written submission dated 12.02.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present along with her son- through video-conference.
Respondent: Shri Binn Peter, Senior Analyst and Shri Vikas V Bhale, Co-Ordinator- participated in the hearing
3. The Appellant inter alia submitted that the relevant information has not been provided to her till date. She averred that the information sought relates to the complaint made in regard to the dowry death of her daughter. She requested to direct the PIO to furnish information as sought.
4. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the relevant information has been duly provided to the Appellant. They stated that the inspection of record was offered to the Appellant. They again offered inspection of records to the Appellant.
Decision:
4. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant is not satisfied with the information received from the Respondent. In order to allay her apprehension, the CPIO is directed to afford an opportunity of inspection of relevant records to the Appellant or her authorised representative on 13th March 2026 between 9 am. To 5 p.m. Further, on the day of inspection, Page 5 of 6 all relevant records must be brought at one place to facilitate inspection and not make the Appellant run around various departments of the Respondent Public Authority. Copy of documents that the Appellant desires during the inspection shall be provided by the CPIO free of cost up to 20 pages, for pages exceeding this limit, CPIO may charge prescribed fees as per RTI Rules, 2012. In doing so, PIO shall ensure that personal information of any third party or any other information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act should not be disclosed and same should be reacted as per Section 10 of the RTI Act. A compliance report in this regard be filed with the Commission by 28.03.2026. Matters are disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Under Secretary & CPIO, National Commission for Women, R.T.I. Cell, Plot No.-21, Jasola Institutional Area, New Delhi-110025.
2 Kalpana Maheshwari Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)