Central Information Commission
Srinath Jagannathan vs Tata Institute Of Social Sciences on 30 August, 2024
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/TISSM/A/2023/619414
Srinath Jagannathan ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Tata Institute of Social
Science, Mumbai ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 04.11.2022 FA : 30.12.2022 SA : 17.04.2023
CPIO : 30.11.2022 FAO : 24.01.2023 Hearing : 28.08.2024
Date of Decision: 30.08.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.11.2022 seeking information regarding TISS advertisement Ref. No. TISS/Teaching/December/ 2021, dated 30.12.2021 on the following points: -
a. Names of screening committee members constituted for scrutinizing applications for the post of Professor, SMLS, TISS.
b. Copy of approval given by competent authority for setting up a screening committee for scrutinizing applications for the post of Professor, SMLS, TISS.Page 1 of 5
c. Copies of all documents (including emails, note sheets, office memoranda, minutes of the meeting, etc.) prepared by the screening committee for Professor, SMLS, TISS based on which list of eligible candidates for the post of Professor, SMLS, TISS was declared by Deputy Registrar (Personnel and Administration), TISS on April 13, 2022.
d. In the advertisement dated December 30, 2021, and the list of eligible candidates displayed on April 13, 2022, reference is made to the following two criteria for determining eligibility: (i) the applicant must have published 10 research publications in peer-reviewed journals; and (ii) should have guided at least 2 doctoral candidates. Did the screening committee apply both criteria to all the 17 candidates who had applied for the post of SMLS, TISS - Yes/No? e. Details of the number and list of research publications of Dr. Sreeram Sivaramakrishnan, who was selected for the post of Professor, SMLS, TISS. ...etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 30.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under
:-
"Point a - Prof. Zubin Mulla, Dr. Gordhan Saini Point b, c & e - The sought information is exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Point d - Yes." ...etc.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.12.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA's order dated 24.01.2023 held as under:
"A. In view of Point No. 3 above, I concur with the Respondent CPIO, TISS and he has properly denied the information u/s. 8 (1) (j) of Right to Information Act, 2005 with respect to point No b,c,e,f,g,h,i,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,t,u,v,w,x,y,z,aa.Page 2 of 5
B. The information sought by Appellant is of personal nature and the same has been received by TISS in the performance of public activity and disclosing the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
C. The Appellant has failed to show the involvement of any larger public interest or activity in disclosing the said information. The Appellant seems to have sought information for some personal interest as referred by me in above Point No. 1.
D. The RTI Act is meant for providing information and not to answer query, inquiry or interrogative question.
E. With respect to Point No. a,d,j,k,l and s, the respondent CPIO, TISS has provided the information to the extent possible.
F. The judgement relied upon, as referred in Point 4 above, pertains to Indian Constitution (Right to Life and Right to freedom), and the same has no relevance with Right to Information Act, 2005."
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 17.04.2023.
5. The appellant remained present through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Pranesh Singh. Legal Officer and Mr. Shahjeet, CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that incomplete, vague and wrong reply has been provided by the respondent.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that all the available and permissible information as per the provisions of the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant. Moreover, the information sought by the Appellant is interrogative in nature which is not allowed to be shared as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further the information asked on point No. c is not specific in nature as the appellant has vaguely sought for "all the documents".
Page 3 of 58. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that an appropriate reply has been provided by the Respondent. The Commission further notes that the Appellant has sought for the personal information of a third party, which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the parties is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission finds no scope of relief to be ordered in the matter. With this observation, the appeal is dismissed.
Page 4 of 5Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 30.08.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO (Under RTI Act, 2005)
Tata Institute of Social Sciences,
VN Purav Marg, Deonar,
Mumbai - 400088
2. Srinath Jagannathan
Page 5 of 5
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)