Central Information Commission
Neeraj Jain vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 9 July, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CBSED/A/2023/112425
Neeraj Jain ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Central Board of Secondary
Education, Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 28.05.2022 FA : 03.09.2022 SA : 16.03.2023
CPIO : 30.06.2022 FAO : Not on record Hearing : 04.07.2024
Date of Decision: 08.07.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.05.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) "Please provide information pertaining to Rashmi Jain D/o Narender Kumar Jain, Admission No. 433, File No. 152,7 as mentioned in her school leaving certificate, she was a student of class Xth in your school. And as per the school leaving certificate issued by you, the addressee no. 1, her date of birth is 01.01.1974 and as per the CBSE certificate her date of birth is 10.09.1973. copy of both documents are attached herewith with this RTI as Annexure A, B. Page 1 of 4
(ii) Please provide the copy of birth certificate of Rashmi Jain and Migration certificate of last school submitted in your school, i.e., addressee no. 1 at the time of taking admission and in which class the admission was given.
(iii) Please confirm the under signed whether the Annexure A is issued form your school or not, i.e., addressee no. 1
(iv) Please provide the date of birth written in the admission form and as per the records of the school (Addressee no. 1)
(v) Please clarify if Rashmi Jain appeared for board examination of 10th class from your school or not. If yes, then please provide the CBSE certificate of result as per your records. If not, then the reason of not appearing as per your records (Addressee no. 1)..." etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 30.06.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"As per information sought, it is informed that the matter does not pertains to this office. You may contact Directorate of Education directly in this regard."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.09.2022. The FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
4. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any order from the First Appellate Authority, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 16.03.2023.
5. The Appellant was present during the hearing in person and on behalf of the Respondent, Manoj Kumar, Section Officer & CPIO along with Ibrahim Khan, Suptd. attended the hearing in person.
6. The Appellant stated that he is amused by the fact that the averred individual, his wife, has supposedly three dates of birth and hence to confirm the correct date of birth, he has asked for this information under the RTI Act. He further stated that if the CPIO is unable to provide the information, he may be guided as to wherefrom he can access the said information.
Page 2 of 47. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant has been already informed that he can approach the Directorate of Education directly in this regard.
8. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the scope of intervention, if any pertinent in the matter is restricted by the fact that the Appellant is insisting on the personal information of a third party to be provided, disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Here, the attention of the Appellant 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..."
9. Further, in the facts of the instant case, the Commission finds the applicability of a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Vijay Prakash vs. Union of India in W.P. (C) 803/2009 to be more appropriate, as it was held as under:
Page 3 of 4"23. As discussed earlier, the "public interest" argument of the Petitioner is premised on the plea that his wife is a public servant; he is in litigation with her, and requires information, - in the course of a private dispute - to establish the truth of his allegations. The CIC has held that there is no public interest element in the disclosure of such personal information, in the possession of the information provider, i.e. the Indian Air Force. This court concurs with the view, on an application of the principles discussed. The petitioner has, not been able to justify how such disclosure would be in "public interest": the litigation is, pure and simple, a private one. The basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption (from disclosure) enacted under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be lifted or disturbed."
10. Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of action in the matter.
11. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनां क/Date: 08.07.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कनल एस एस िछकारा ($रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Central Board of Secondary Education, Regional Office, Delhi (East), P.S. 1-2, Institutional Area, I.P. Extension, Patparganj, Delhi - 110092.
2. Neeraj Jain Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)