Central Information Commission
Snigdhoneel Roy Choudhury vs Indian Institute Of Technology, ... on 19 September, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/IITKH/A/2022/650184
Snigdhoneel Roy Choudhury .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Section Officer-(RTI Section), Indian Institute of
Technology-Kharagpur (Ministry of Education),
Post Office--Kharagpur, Kharagpur,
Paschim Medinipur-721302 (West Bengal).
प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.04.2022
CPIO replied on : 12.05.2022
First appeal filed on : 03.06.2022
First Appellate Authority order : 01.07.2022
Second Appeal received at CIC : 16.09.2022
Date of Hearing : 19.09.2023
Date of Decision : 19.09.2023
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information:
1. Was there any student named Ratul Chatterjee (possible role no. 9228113) in the B. Tech (Hons.) Mining Engineering program of IIT Kharagpur between 1992 and 1996?
2. Was there any disciplinary proceeding conducted against the said Ratul Chatterjee at any point of time, and what was the outcome? Please provide Page 1 of 5 certified copies of all records related to the same including minutes of meetings, decisions, internal communications, and notes.
3. Alternatively, please confirm if there was no disciplinary proceeding against Ratul Chatterjee, especially during his stay at the Vidyasagar Hall of Residence between 1992 and 1993.
4. Please clarify if, as per the rules and regulations applicable to IIT Kharagpur, any student found guilty in any disciplinary proceeding, is barred from receiving any award (academic or non-academic)? Please provide certified copies of the relevant rules and regulations of IIT Kharagpur applicable during 1992 to 1996.
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 12.05.2022, as under:
The document / information (01 page) as received from deputy registrar (academic), IIT Kharagpur is enclosed here with.
Point 1- 3 personal information cannot be provided.
Point no 4 link of the website provided.
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 03.06.2022.
• The FAA vide order dated 01.07.2022 has upheld reply of the CPIO:
• Written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 08.09.2023.
'Regarding query No. U1-US: name, disciplinary proceeding, etc of student is personal information of third party which is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act in the light of the decision of Hon'ble. Information Commissioner Ms. Saroj Punhani, CIC, New Delhi in the matter of Shri Har Sukhdeep Singh vs IIT Kharagpur vide Decision No. CIC/ITKH/A/2020/106698 dated 21-09-2021 in which the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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 RK. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr,, (2013) 14 SCC 794 has been referred. 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 proceeding, ef. are all personal information Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the Page 2 of 5 family members, information relating to assets, liabilties, 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 indictive and not exhaustive..."
Moreover, it also emphasized that the name and particulars of the students is personal information, and it is held by the Public Authority in a fiduciary capacity which is also not disclosable u/s 8(1)(e) of RTI Act in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Information Commissioner, Shri Y. K. Sinha in the matter of Ms. Anita Chaudhary Vs PIO, DDE -- Zone II, Dte. Of Education, Shakarpur, Delhi -- 110092 and PIO, ADE - (East), Dte. Of Education (E), Anand Vihar, Delhi -- 110092 vide Decision No. CIC/DIRED/A/2018/145555 dated 09-06-2020 which has been referred as under:
"...The information about names and particulars of students is personal information held by the school in a fiduciary capacity disclosure of which would invade the privacy of the children concerned. Hence specific information including names, parents' names, and similar information about the students is barred from public disclosure in terms of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act."
Regarding Query No. 04: UG regulation has already been uploaded in the website hence, and the link of the same regulation has been provided to the appellant.
However, the question of delay in replying does not arise, as Public Information Officer of the Institute has replied to the appellant within the time frame in RTI Portal on 12-05-2023 and through email on 08-07- 2023 as the appellant filed this RTI application through online RTI Portal. (Annexure-VII) Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Mr. Divanshu (Authorised Representative) Respondent: 1. Animesh Kumar (Asst. Registrar)
2. Santanu Das (APIO) (Deputy Registrar) Page 3 of 5 Appellant has submitted that he has not received the information . He further requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to furnish the relevant information.
Upon the Commissions instance, the CPIO has submitted that they have provided the point wise reply to the appellant. He further stated that point 1-3 of the RTI Application is related to third party information. as regards the point no4 they have provided the link of the website. He further stated that he would abide by the orders of the Commission.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the complainant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Thus, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy.
(अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 4 of 5 Page 5 of 5