Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Sankar Prasad Rath vs Indian Institute Of Technology (Iit), ... on 30 April, 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. CIC/IITBB/A/2024/617420+
                                          CIC/IITBB/A/2024/622336+
                                          CIC/IITBB/A/2024/612425

 Sankar Prasad Rath                                               ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                          VERSUS
                                           बनाम
 CPIO:
 Indian Institute of Technology (IIT),
 Bhubaneshwar, Odisha                                         ... ितवादीगण/Respondent

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):

     Sl.Second     Date of       Date of      Date of     Date of       Date of
     No.Appeal     RTI           CPIO's       First       FAA's         Second
        No.        Application Reply          Appeal      Order         Appeal
    1. 617420      01.03.2024 21.03.2024 01.04.2024 18.04.2024 25.04.2024
    2. 622336      29.03.2024 24.04.2024 26.04.2024 16.05.2024 26.05.2024
    3. 612425      31.01.2024 21.02.2024 27.02.2024 13.03.2024 20.03.2024
Note: The instant set of appeal(s) have been clubbed for decision as these relate to
similar nature of information sought for in the RTI Application(s).

Date of Hearing: 30.04.2025
Date of Decision: 30.04.2025
                                          CORAM:
                                    Hon'ble Commissioner
                                  _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                         ORDER

Second Appeal No. CIC/IITBB/A/2024/617420

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1) "Kindly provide the salary package and other benefits offered to those students who got placement in ARM Company Bangalore who are passed in ECE branch from IIT Bhubaneswar in 2023.

2) Kindly provide the number of students, got placement in ARM Company Bangalore who are passed in ECE branch from IIT Bhubaneswar in 2023.

3) Kindly provide the name of state belongs to those students who got placement in ARM Company Bangalore, who have passed in ECE branch from IIT Bhubaneswar in 2023.

4) Kindly provide the contact details of ARM Company Bangalore HR branch or who have came to IIT Bhubaneswar to conduct placements of students who are passed in ECE branch from IIT Bhubaneswar in 2023."

1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"1-4: The information sought is a non-disclosure of information as mentioned by the company and is under a fiduciary relationship. Hence, it cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005."

1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.04.2024. The FAA vide order dated 18.04.2024 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 25.04.2024.

Second Appeal No. CIC/IITBB/A/2024/622336

2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1) "Kindly provide the placement details of my son Rajeev Rath which he got offered and joined in that company after passing out from IIT Bhubaneswar in EC Engineering in 2023.

2) Kindly provide the gross salary of my son Rajeev Rath offered and joined in that company after passing out from IIT Bhubaneswar in 2023."

2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 24.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

 "The queries are individual specific and falls under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act as personal information.

 The individual concern Mr. Rajeev Rath has submitted a written statement not to disclose any information on his behalf to anyone.  In view of this, the requested information cannot be provided."

2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.04.2024 stating as under:

"..To get some financial help from my son I have filed a maintenance case against my son in the family court, Delhi. To establish the quantum of maintenance amount required, it is crucial to gather pertinent information about my son's financial circumstances, particularly regarding his income and assets. In pursuit of this, I have sought the information, as per the precedent set by the Hon'ble Central Information Commission in the case of Naresh Kumar Yalla vs CPIO, EPFO (order No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2020/133178-UM dated 30.11.2021). These information may not be treated under section 8(1) (j) as per that order, so provide the information at the earliest as it is difficult for the old aged father without the support from only son. I assure you that the information will be used solely for the purpose of the maintenance case proceedings in the Family Court..."

The FAA vide order dated 16.05.2024 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 26.05.2024.

Second Appeal No. CIC/IITBB/A/2024/612425

3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1) "Kindly provide the detailed name and address of MNCs (offices in Bangalore city only) in which students passed in ECE branch from IIT Bhubaneswar in 2023 got placement.

2) Kindly provide the salary package and other benefits offered to those students who got placement as per sl. no 1.

3) Kindly provide the name of student who offered / got maximum salary package in each MNCs (offices in Bangalore city only) after passed out in ECE branch from IIT Bhubaneswar in 2023."

3.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.02.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"1: The desired information are attached in Annexure-A. 2: Salary range from 9.65 LPA to 46 LPA.

3: Disclosure of personal information are exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005."

3.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.02.2024. The FAA vide order dated 13.03.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

3.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 20.03.2024.

Hearing Proceedings & Decision

4. The Appellant was present during the hearing in person and on behalf of the Respondent, Subhaprad Mohanty, CPIO along with Ravi Patnaik attended the hearing through video conference.

5. The Appellant at the outset argued that the FAA is in the habit of issuing cyclostyled orders and never mentions their name. It was further his contention that the information related to his son cannot be denied to him as though he was the stepfather and this kind of approach being adopted against him by his son and the Respondent Institute is unacceptable. He further argued that since he had taken up education loans to fund the cost of his son's education at IIT, his son's ignorance towards him and repayment of EMIs has compelled him to take legal recourse. In this regard, he also reiterated the grounds of First Appeal and reliance placed on an earlier CIC decision as mentioned in the facts of the case above vide Second Appeal No. CIC/IITBB/A/2024/622336.

Furthermore, against the denial of information by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act as being related to other students, it was argued that in the matter of CPIO, SC vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010, 'the Hon'ble Court mentioned that there is no fiduciary relationship between the Chief Justice and the judges or among the constitutional functionaries as envisaged under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act which could be a ground for holding back the information. Reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and Another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others and Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, to contend that the duty of a public servant is not to act for the benefit of another public servant, that is, the Chief Justice and other functionaries are meant to discharge their constitutional duties and not act as a fiduciary of anyone, except the people. In arguendo, even if there exists a fiduciary relationship among the functionaries, disclosure can be made if it serves the larger public interest. Additionally, candour and confidentiality are not heads of exemption under the RTI Act and, therefore, cannot be invoked as exemptions in this case.'

6. The Respondent reiterated the replies available on record and further submitted that the Appellant has been filing multiple RTI Applications to seemingly triangulate details of his son, who has categorically denied his consent for disclosure of information related to him to the Appellant. This being a private dispute and a family matter, their office has to act with utmost caution and due diligence when disclosure of such personal details are Page 5 of 8 sought for and merely on the insistence of the Appellant, the information cannot be parted with. It was further submitted that the NDA signed with the ARM Company Bangalore with respect to the placements, stipulate complete non-disclosure of any information related to salary emoluments etc. to third parties, hence the element of fiduciary was found to be subsisting in the nature of the information sought for by the Appellant in Second Appeal No. CIC/IITBB/A/2024/617420 under reference. Upon the Commission instance, the CPIO agreed to place on record the relevant placement stipulations signed with the averred company to ascertain if the terms therein apply to point no.2 of the RTI Application referred to in Second Appeal No. CIC/IITBB/A/2024/617420.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the reply of the CPIO in the cases under reference are found to be in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act except for point no.2 of the RTI Application referred to in Second Appeal No. CIC/IITBB/A/2024/617420, since the Appellant merely sought to know the "number of students" placed with the averred company, and no embargo is found in the disclosure of such data in the document relied upon by the CPIO.

Having observed as above, the Commission directs the CPIO to revisit point no.2 of the RTI Application in Second Appeal No. CIC/IITBB/A/2024/617420 and provide the available information free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days of the receipt of this order. A compliance report to this effect shall be sent to the Commission by the CPIO immediately thereafter.

8. As regards the contentions of the Appellant against the invocation of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, the Commission finds his contentions misplaced and labored, particularly as regards the larger public interest aspect, if at all, that is being sought to be advanced by way of placing reliance on the above stated excerpt from the Apex Court judgment in the matter of CPIO, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal. Per contra, the CPIO has duly justified the invocation of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act as stipulated under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act. Similarly, the disclosure of the information related to the Page 6 of 8 placement of other students (irrespective of one of them being the son of the Appellant) inclusive of their salary package etc. stands squarely exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. While the Commission empathizes with the ordeal narrated by the Appellant vis- à-vis the alleged family dispute, the fact remains that within the confines of the RTI Act, there is no scope of any relief to be ordered in Second Appeal No. CIC/IITBB/A/2024/622336. In the facts of the instant case, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards the following excerpt from the same 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. 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..."

9. With the above direction and observations, the instant set of Appeal(s) are disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 30.04.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO Indian Institute of Technology, Bhubaneswar, CPIO, RTI Cell, Administrative Building, Aragul Jatni, Khorda, Bhubaneswar, Odisha-752050

2. Sankar Prasad Rath Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)