Central Information Commission
Soumya Swarup vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 16 February, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CBSED/A/2025/610161
Soumya Swarup .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. The CPIO
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY
EDUCATION, RTI CELL, REGIONAL
OFFICE: DEHRADUN, 99,
KAULAGARH ROAD, DEHRADUN, UTTARAKHAND-248001
2. The CPIO
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY
EDUCATION, RTI Cell,
INTEGRATED OFFICE COMPLEX, SECTOR - 23,
PHASE-I, DWARKA, NEW DELHI - 110077 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29.01.2026
Date of Decision : 16.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03.10.2024
CPIO replied on : 09.10.2024
First appeal filed on : 24.12.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : Nil
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28.02.2025
Information sought:
Page 1 of 111. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.10.2024 seeking the following information:-
1. Shri Ram Educational and Charitable Trust, 85 South Bhopa Road, Muzaffarnagar (Mount Litera Zee School, Gandhi Colony, Muzaffarnagar) is a public trust and not a private/family trust.
2. I, Soumya Swarup, am a life and permanent trustee of the above-
mentioned institution and have been appointed as such by the order of the Hon'ble Court in Case No. 469/18 dated 03.02.2023. (A copy of the proposal has already been sent to you.) Therefore, I do not fall under the category of a 3rd Party as per Chapter 8 of the RTI Act 2005.
3. Shri Ram Educational and Charitable Trust (Mount Litera Zee School, Gandhi Colony, Muzaffarnagar) is a public trust with an 80G Certificate with registration number 137/1425/2016-17, which automatically comes under the RTI domain, and the information sought is not restricted under Chapter 8.
4. The Trust is engaged in the charitable work of providing education and owns and administers Mount Litera Zee School, Gandhi Colony, Muzaffarnagar.
5. For the above reasons, the Trust serves the general public's interest, as the Beneficiary of a public trust is the Public at Large, not any particular individual or family.
6. The information provided is not likely to harm the interests of the Trust.
Please refer to the order of the Central Information Commission, Delhi, CIC/CBSED/A/2023/143104, dated 24.09.2024. As you stated before the Central Information Commission, Delhi, that an investigation is pending against Mount Litera Zee School, Gandhi Colony, Muzaffarnagar.
Please provide the following information under the Right to Information Act, 2005:-
(i). Please provide the date, month, and year when this investigation was initiated.
(ii). This investigation has likely been pending for several years, so please provide information on the date by which the investigation can possibly be completed.
(iii). When and how the investigation has been conducted since its inception and up to the present date.
(Progress) Please also provide information. Please keep the applicant.
7. Does the information sought concern the life or liberty of a person? No. Page 2 of 11
8. Does the applicant belong to the Below Poverty Line (BPL) category? No.
2. The CPIO, CBSE, Dehradun furnished a reply to the Appellant on 09.10.2024 stating as under:-
In this regard, you are informed that the information sought by you is being sent for action under Section 6 (3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 as it pertains to the CBSE Delhi unit. As soon as the information is received, you will be informed by letter.
3. Aggrieved by the decision of CPIO, Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.12.2024. The FAA's order, if any, is not on record.
4. Challenging non-disposal of her First Appeal, appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Mrs. Meghna Sharma, Advocate present through video conference.
Respondent: Shri Harpreet Singh, CPIO, CBSE, Dehradun present through video conference.
Respondent No. 2: Shri Pankaj Kshettry, US/CPIO, CBSE, Delhi present in person.
5. Ld. counsel for the Appellant stated that CPIOs' of CBSE is in the habit of not-giving specific categorical reply in response to RTI application from the past. Hence, the instant Second Appeal before the Commission seeking intervention in the matter. She prayed the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information.
6. A written statement dated 28.01.2026 filed by Shri Pankaj Kshettry, US/CPIO, CBSE, Delhi (Respondent No. 2 herein) is taken on record.
Respondent No. 2, during hearing, reiterated the contents of his written statement, wherein he inter alia pleaded as under: -
"...1. PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS
1. At the very outset, the Respondent submits that the present appeal is not an isolated RTI request filed alone by the Appellant. It forms part of a continuing and systematic pattern of repetitive RTI applications, complaints, Page 3 of 11 counter complaints and appeals filed by the Appellant and her family members.
2. These repeated filings invariably pertain to the same institution-Mount Litera Zee School, Muzaffarnagar-and the same trust, Shri Ram and Educational Trust. They involve the Appellant, her family members, and office bearers of the School and Trust, across diverse subject matters including complaints, counter-complaints, and their status. Further, information held by the Board in a fiduciary capacity is being simultaneously sought from multiple sections and offices of the Board, thereby creating an undue and repetitive burden.
3. Such repetitive conduct, despite repeated adjudication, is contrary to the spirit and objectives of the RTI Act, 2005, which is designed to promote transparency in matters of genuine public interest, and not to facilitate harassment of the Pubic Information Authorities or advance/resolve personal vendetta.
4. Further, the Respondent respectfully invites kind attention of the Hon'ble Commission to its most recent Joint Order dated 19.08.2025, passed by it after hearing two Second Appeals filed by the same Appellant in CIC/CBSED/A/2024/648354 and CIC/CBSED/A/2024/647712 involving the same School, Trust, the same factual background, and the same set of self- proclaimed claims and stakes asserted by the Appellant.
5. In the said proceedings, heard on 11.08.2025 and 19.08.2025, the Hon'ble Commission, after due deliberation upon the submissions of both parties and examination of records, categorically held as under
"The Commission notes that the appellant and her family members are frequently filing RTI Applications on the same subject matter which is purely against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, through file no. CIC/CBSED/A/2024/100693 and CIC/CBSED/A/2024/605803, the commission has also decided the second appeals of the family members of the appellant on the same subject. Therefore, the Commission strongly advises the appellant to desist from filing multiple RTI Applications seeking details of third party as her future appeals/complaints on the same 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. Further, in the absence of the larger public interest, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed"Page 4 of 11
6. Importantly, herein the Hon'ble Commission also expressly advised the Respondent to take reference of the said decision while dealing with any future RTI applications of the Appellant on the same subject matter, thereby providing authoritative guidance directly applicable to the present appeal as well.
7. The present appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid order and represents a continuation of the same repetitive and motivated pattern to address private affairs under the guise of the RTI Act, already deprecated by the Hon'ble Commission.
8. It is worth mentioning that vide another joint Decision/Order dated 25.07 2025, the Hon'ble Commission, after hearing following 09 Second Appeals:
1. CIC/CBSED/A/2024/126322 2 CIC/CBSED/A/2024/130168
3. CIC/CBSED/A/2024/130968
4. CIC/CBSED/A/2024/634580
5. CIC/CBSED/A/2024/646177
6. CIC/CBSED/A/2024/646909
7. CIC/CBSED/A/2024/647176
8. CIC/CBSED/A/2024/647328
9. CIC/CBSED/A/2024/647693 filed by Shri Anil Swaroop-one of the family members of the Appellant, who asserts co-ownership of the land; where now the concerned School is constructed, the Commission held that:
....the Appellant is advised to make judicious use of his right to information in the future and to desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications as Appeal(s) emanating from the same are liable to be summarily dismissed henceforth. The Respondent(s) are also at liberty to rely on the instant decision in the event that the Appellant files same or similar RTI Applications in the future."
9. Vide another Decision/Order dated 28.07.2025 in CIC/CBSED/A/2024/647797 in respect of second appeal filed by another family member of the Appellant, Sh. Abhinav Swaroop, the Commission held that:
"Moreover, the issues raised in the instant appeal are identical to those raised in CIC/CBSED/A/2024/130968 & Other (Anil Swaroop), disposed of by the Commission vide order dated 25.07.2025 That being so, the Commission Page 5 of 11 finds no ground for re-visiting the merits of the case. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed."
II. OVERVIEW
1. The entire dispute revolves around Mount Litera Zee School, situated at Gandhi Colony, Link Road, Near Mayur Mahal Palace, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh-251002, which is affiliated with the CBSE vide Affiliation No. 2132852 with effect from 01.04.2017.
2. As per records available with the Respondent, the Appellant's close relatives, namely Sh. Anil Swarup and Sh Alok Swarup, claimed to be co- owners of the land on which the said school is constructed
3. The said land has been leased to Shri Ram Educational and Charitable Trust for a period of 30 years, i.e., from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2046. III. EXTENT OF LITIGATION AND SUB JUDICE MATTERS
1. There exists a long-standing and civil dispute between the landowners (and their family members, including the Appellant) and the School/Trust, apparently relating to Lease terms, Rental amounts, Possession and tenancy rights, and Trust/Management and nomination of its members, control, etc. These disputes are not concluded; rather, they are actively sub judice before multiple courts in Muzaffarnagar district, Uttar Pradesh.
2. In this regard, a significant number of Civil Suits, Original Suits and Complaint Cases between the said land owner(s), ASJ Developers (with whom the said land owner(s) is/are associated), as well Appellant's other family members versus the above cited School Trust and the said Trustee/President (Sh. Navneet Bhardwaj), former School Principal Dr. Peyush Gupta are currently pending in the courts in Muzaffarnagar district of Uttar Pradesh and awaiting decision. (Indicative list of sub judice cases annexed at ANNEXURE-1.
IV. PATTERN OF RTI APPLICATIONS AND MISUSE OF PROCESS
1. From the year 2017 till date, the Appellant's family members have filed more than 50 complaints and numerous representations to this effect before various units of CBSE
2. Between May 2018 and July 2025, the Appellant as well as her family members namely Sh Anil Swaroop, Smt. Kavita Swaroop and Sh. Abhinav Swaroop, have altogether filed an extraordinary high number of 138 RTI applications alone before the Affiliation Unit of CBSE, all relating to the same School/Trust and overlapping issues. followed by First Appeals in many cases.
Page 6 of 113. In addition, the family members of the Appellant have also filed RTI applications appeals and complaints seeking identical information, or rephrased versions of previously sought information and for seeking status of complaints and counter complaints with Other Sections and Regional Office of the Board, followed by First Appeals in many cases
4. All such communications onginate from a common residential address clearly demonstrating a coordinated and repetitive exercise.
5. The Respondent respectfully submits that such conduct amounts to a gross misuse of the RTI mechanism, which is intended to promote transparency in public administration and not to serve as a forum for settling private disputes.
6. Such repeated and persistent filling of RTI applications, often seeking identical or marginally reworded or those intended to resolve personal affairs or extend substantiation to private sub judice matters, runs contrary to the object and legislative intent of the RTI Act. The Act is designed to promote transparency and accountability in public authorities, and not to be employed as an instrument for harassment of Public Information Authorities, pressure-building, or pursuit of private civil disputes V. RESPONSE AND PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE BY THE RESPONDENT
1. Despite the above circumstances, CBSE has examined every complaint under the CBSE Affiliation Bye-Laws, conducted inspections wherever warranted; referred matters falling within State jurisdiction to the appropriate State Education Department, strictly in accordance with Affiliation Unit Circular No 03/2019 dated 30.01.2019, provided all relevant and available information under the RTI Act: granted personal hearings to the Appellant whenever appropriate.
2. However, the Respondent cannot allow the RTI Act be permitted to be used as a tool for evidence-gathering or for gaining strategic control in private disputes.
VI. OBJECTIONS FROM AFFECTED THIRD PARTIES The School Management, Trust, Trustees and former Principal through various letters have formally and repeatedly communicated the Respondent Public Authority inter alia categorically stated the following:
1. That for creating disruption in the functioning of the school, the said Land Owner(s) regularly keeps on sending false complaints with CBSE and other departments Page 7 of 11
2. That the said Land Owner(s) and their family had been blackmailing the Trust and the School Management since long time. The School has also repeatedly requested the Board to not to share any information of Mount Litera Zee School and Shri Ram Educational and Charitable Trust with the said land owners and his family members.
3. क माउं ट िल ा जी कू ल मुज फरनगर व ीराम एजुकेशनल एंड पै रटेबल ट के आलोक व प, अिनल व प, अिभनय व प व इनके प रवार के साथ कई वाद-
प रवाद िविभ यायालय म िवचाराधीन है। इसिलए कू ल व ट के येक द तावेज क गोपनीय रखा जाना अ याव यक है।
4. क मांउट िन ा जी कू ल मुज फरनगर व ीराम एजुकेशनल एंड चै रटेबल ट से संबंिधत कोई भी द तावेज, कू ल क जांच रपोट जांच आ या, आ द कसी भी दशा म अथवा सूचना के अिधकार िनयम 2005 के तहत CBSE ारा अिनल व प या इनके प रवार के कसी भी सद य या अ य कसी को भी ना दया जाए और ना ही इन द तावेज को सावजिनक कया जाए। इन द तावेज क गोपनीय एवं सुरि त रखा जाना अ याव यक है।
Disregarding such formal objections and disclosing any further information would be contrary to principles of natural justice and settled RTI jurisprudence.
VII. APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 8(1h) OF THE RTI ACT. 2005
1. The Respondent respectfully submits that further disclosure is expressly exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, as the information sought directly relates to matters under judicial consideration as the Appellant is directly or indirectly and/or inherently connected with matters presently under judicial scrutiny. Any disclosure of information pertaining to the School or related to the Trust of the School would impede the adjudicatory process and nevertheless would confer an unfair advantage to the other party/parties upon the Appellant and/or her family members in various ongoing litigations
2. The RTI Act cannot be permitted to be converted into a parallel discovery mechanism or a strategic tool for evidente-gathering in pending litigation. VIII. APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 8 (1) (j) ABSENCE OF LARGER PUBLIC INTEREST - THIRD PARTY INFORMATION AND
1. Disclosure of information relating to third parties, without any demonstrable larger public interest, is expressly barred under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The present appeal seeks information of a personal and third- party nature, devoid of any nexus with public interest Page 8 of 11
2. The Appellant has failed to establish or even prima facie demonstrate the existence of any larger public interest that would justify disclosure of the information sought. On the contrary, the record unmistakably indicates that the dominant purpose behind the RTI applications is to advance private disputes arising out of lease and management conflicts with the School and its Trust IX. DISPROPORTIONATE DIVERSION OF PUBLIC RESOURCES AND MANDATE
1. The persistent filing of complaints and RTIs and Appeals by the Appellant and her family members has resulted in diversion of time of the Pubic Authority, unwarranted inspections, administrative burden affecting CBSE's core mandate, including conduct of Class X and XII examinations and avoidable administrative burden. Such misuse runs contrary to the spirit and objectives of the RTI Act and further exempts disclosure of any such information and that too in a repeated manner.
2. The repeated and overlapping RTI applications filed by the Appellant and her family members impose a disproportionate burden on the Respondent's resources, which is contrary to Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. X. SUMMATION AND PRAYER
1. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, it is humbly submitted that the present appeal is repetitive and devoid of public interest, the issues raised are sub judice before competent courts and disclosure of information is expressly exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and the objections been raised by the affected third parties.
2. The matter is squarely covered by the Hon'ble Commission's earlier order dated 19.08.2025.
3. The Respondent therefore prays for:
i Closing of the proceedings and dismissal of the present Second Appeal; ii. Uphold the Respondent's position denying further disclosure thereby enabling the Respondent Board to focus on its statutory mandate and genuine stakeholder concerns.
iii. Any other order as may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts and circumstances declared above, may be passed in favour of the Respondent. In view of the above, the Hon'ble Commission is respectfully requested to consider the Respondent's position and issue appropriate directions accordingly."Page 9 of 11
7. CPIO summed up his arguments by apprising the Bench that Appellant and her family members are habitual RTI applicants who filed multiple RTI application for their personal vendetta with a forged claim of being the Trustee of Shri Ram and Educational Trust. However, in the records of the Trust, name of Appellant is no where reflected as Trustee of the organization. CPIO alleged that Appellant and her family members are land encroacher who illegally occupied the land of State of UP, the news of which is also revealed in media. CPIO lastly averred that Appellant filed frivolous RTI applications, Complaints and Court Cases list of which are enclosed in the written statement, merely to harass the Respondent Public Authority. However, as regards instant Second Appeal, a copy of written statement was already provided to the Appellant via email. Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records observes that as far as RTI Application in question is concerned, it was suitably replied to the Appellant vide letter dated 09.10.2024 and 14.08.2025 in terms of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, learned counsel for the Appellant failed to substantiate the ground of dissatisfaction vis-à-vis RTI application in question. Further, the written statement dated 28.01.2026 filed by the CPIO is comprehensive and self-explanatory, and a copy of which has been provided to the Appellant through email.
9. In the light of above, it is not a fit matter to grant any relief.
10. As regards the issue raised by the CPIO during hearing, the Commission suggests the Appellant not to file repetitive similar RTI Applications which goes against the spirit of RTI Act and taking away the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. In this regard, the Commission invites attention of the parties towards a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in a case titled Biplab Kumar Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. WPA 3116 of 2022 wherein it was held as under -
"...It appears from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner's ploy is to collect information under the Right to Information Act and thereafter use the said information to harass the private parties as well as the Municipality for unlawful gain. The conduct of the petitioner appears to be plainly harrassive and mala fide.Page 10 of 11
The averments and allegations made in the writ petition remains unsubstantiated. The writ petition is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed with costs.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) only to be paid by the petitioner in the office of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within September 30, 2022..."
11. Hence, the Appellant is expected to make sensible use of Right to Information resulting in transparency.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi (सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Ms. Soumya Swarup Page 11 of 11 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)