Central Information Commission
Gurjeet Singh Chawla vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 27 February, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CBSED/A/2025/620236
Gurjeet Singh Chawla .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,
RTI Cell, INTEGRATED OFFICE COMPLEX,
SECTOR - 23, PHASE-I, DWARKA,
NEW DELHI - 110077 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23.02.2026
Date of Decision : 23.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.01.2025
CPIO replied on : N.A.
First appeal filed on : 28.02.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : N.A.
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 04.05.2025
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.01.2025 seeking the following information:
"1. A certified copy of the CBSE Affiliation Bylaws that were in effect during the year 2015.
2. Certified copy of any related amendments or notifications issued by CBSE during that period that affect the said bylaws.Page 1 of 9
3. Certified copy of the map on the basis of which CBSE granted recognition to Suresh Chand Memorial Public School, Vill-Upeda, PO- Babugarh, Distt-Hapur.
4. Certified copy of the N.O.C. issued by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Board, Lucknow, on the basis of which CBSE granted affiliation to Suresh Chand Memorial Public School, Vill-Upeda, PO-Babugarh, Distt- Hapur.
5. Certified copy of the fire safety certificate submitted along with the application for affiliation of Suresh Chand Memorial Public School, Vill- Upeda, PO-Babugarh, Distt-Hapur.
6. Kindly provide information on whether any inspection was conducted by the officials of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) prior to granting affiliation to Suresh Chand Memorial Public School, Village Upeda, Post Office Babugarh, District Hapur. If such an inspection was conducted, please furnish copies of the inspection report along with any supporting evidence, including photographs."
2. Having not received the reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.02.2025. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Aggrieved by the non-disposal of First Appeal, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh Chawla along with Shri Sarbpal Singh, Advocate, present in person.
Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kshettry, US/CPIO present in person.
4. Written statement of the CPIO is taken on record.
5. CPIO relied on his written statement and stated that due to relocation of CBSE office from Preet Vihar, Delhi to Dwarka, Delhi, which also led to shifting of office record from one place to another. During the process of shifting/relocation, the CPIO furnished an interim reply to the Appellant on 07.02.2025 intimating this factum of shifting. Thereafter, a final reply was provided to the Appellant with the following information point- wise:-
"1. In this regard, please note that the Affiliation Bye-Laws applicable during the year 2015 are available in the public domain. You may access and Page 2 of 9 download the certified copy of the same from the CBSE official website at the following link:
https://www.cbse.gov.in/examin~1/Affiliation%20Bye%20Laws%20Word%20(F inal)%20f or%20uploading%20on%20the%20website_2012.pdf
2. All amendments and notifications issued by the Board from time to time in the form of circulars and E-Sandesh is available in public domain, and the applicant can access these circulars on the official CBSE website under the Public Portal or Circulars section.
https://www.cbse.gov.in/cbsenew/circulars.html For circulars specifically related to school Affiliation, you may also check:
https://saras.cbse.gov.in/SARAS/Affiliation/Circulars
3. The desired information is not compiled by this office.
4. In this regard, the No Objection Certificate submitted by the concerned school as part of its application for the year 2016-2017 is enclosed for your reference.
5. In this regard, the Fire Safety Certificate submitted by the concerned school as part of its application for the year 2018-2019 is enclosed for your reference.
6. As per Chapter 11 clause 11.7 (11.7.1) of CBSE Affiliation Bye-Laws, the inspection of the school is a confidential assignment, and all information provided to the member(s) is in a fiduciary capacity. Hence, no such information can be provided under section 8(1) (d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act 2005. Affiliation Bye-Laws available at https://saras.cbse.gov.in/SARAS https://saras.cbse.gov.in/saras/Home/Information or at the given link."
6. As regards point-wise submission in the matter in response to this Second Appeal, the CPIO reiterated the contents of his written statement wherein he inter alia pleaded as under -"Point No. 1
The Appellant was informed that the Affiliation Bye-Laws applicable during the year 2015 are available in the public domain. In compliance with Section 4(1)(b) and Section 4(2) of the RTI Act, the web link to the relevant Bye-Laws was duly provided:
Link:https://www.cbse.gov.in/examination1/Affiliation%20Bye%20Laws%20Wor d%20(Final)%2 0for%20uploading%20on%20the%20website_2012.pdf The Respondent submits that where information is already available in the public domain, providing the authenticated web link satisfies the statutory obligation under the RTI Act. The Act does not mandate duplication of information that is already proactively disclosed.Point No. 2 Page 3 of 9
The Appellant was informed that all amendments, notifications, and circulars issued by the Board from time to time are available in the public domain. The relevant links to the official Circulars Section, including those pertaining to the Affiliation Unit, were provided: Link: https://saras.cbse.gov.in/SARAS/Home/Circulars This is in consonance with Section 4(1)(b) and Section 4(2) of the RTI Act, which emphasize suo motu disclosure to minimize recourse to individual RTI applications.Point No. 3
The Appellant sought information regarding certified copy of the "Map" on the basis of which CBSE granted recognition to the concerned school. In this regard it is clarified that:
Recognition of a school is accorded by the concerned State Government/UT Administration/Directorate of Education in accordance with the provisions of the RTE Act 2009, under whose jurisdiction the school is situated. Whereas, CBSE grants affiliation only to those schools that apply and fulfill the norms prescribed under the Affiliation Bye-Laws. The Appellant was informed that information pertaining to the "Map" is not compiled or maintained by the Respondent in respect of the concerned School. Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, a public authority is required to provide information that is held or under its control. The Act does not cast an obligation to create, compile, or collate information that is not maintained in the records of the Public Authority. Accordingly, the Appellant is advised to approach the competent State Education Authority for any document relating to recognition of the School.Point No. 4
In lieu of a formal No Objection Certificate (NOC), the concerned school had furnished a copy of its application dated 26.04.2016 submitted to the District Education Department, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh seeking issuance of NOC. The same was provided to the Appellant. (Annexure-B) This is in conformity with CBSE Notification/Circular No. 10/2013 dated 08.07.2013 which provided relaxation of the requirement of NOC in specified circumstances. The Circular is available in public domain on the CBSE website or the following link: Link: https://saras.cbse.gov.in/SARAS/Home/OASAMSCirculars Link: https://seres.cbee.gov.in/SARAS/Circulars//2015- 16Circular/Circular/CIRCULAR%2010.pdال (Annexure-C) The Respondent provided the available documentary record as available in the records as per the record position and in accordance with the RTI Act.Point No. 5
The Fire Safety Certificate dt. 14.07.2021 submitted by the school to the Board while seeking upgradation of affiliation was supplied to the Appellant as per available records. (Annexure-D).Page 4 of 9
Further, the Fire Safety Certificate dated 15.07.2014, which had been furnished by the concerned School at the time of seeking initial affiliation from CBSE but was not traceable during the transitional phase of office relocation, is enclosed as desired.
(Annexure-E).
The temporary non-availability of the document was purely administrative and attributable to the shifting and re-organization of records. Upon retrieval, the same has now been furnished to the Appellant.
Additionally, it is submitted that the school has uploaded its latest Fire Safety Certificate on its official website as part of Mandatory Public Disclosure requirements:
Website: https://scmpublicschool.in/ With regard to application for affiliation of the School is concemed, the Appellant is informed that the online affiliation application/request submitted by the concerned School for affiliation contains various components contains various third-party information held in confidence, information relating to KYC, and personal details of the staff/society of the school which is held by the Board in fiduciary capacity for the purpose of affiliation of the School with CBSE. Hence, the desired information cannot be provided under section 8(1) (d), (e) and (i) of the RTI Act 2005.
the concerned school has been declared by the School in digital format in public domain and is available on CBSE website in the form of Comprehensive Report Card of the School as part of public disclosure. The applicant may visit the following website or given link under GIS Mapping of Schools and access the desired information:
Website: https://www.cbse.gov.in/ OR https://saras.chae.gov.in/maps/udiselocatechse Link: https://saras.cbse.gov.in/maps/finalreportDetail?AffNo-2132336 The Respondent has thus acted transparently and bona fide, providing all records available and traceable in its custody.
Point No. The Appellant sought inspection reports and related details was informed that under Chapter 11, Clause 11.7 (11.7.1) of the CBSE Affiliation Bye-Laws, 2018 inspection of schools is a confidential assignment and all information(8) Affiliation can provided to the members is in a fiduciary capacity. Bye-laws be referred on the CBSE website <https://saras.cbse.gov.in/SARAS or at the given link: <https://saras.cbse.gov.in/saras/Home/Information Accordingly, such information is exempt from disclosure under following provisions of the of the RTI Act, 2005:
Section 8(1)(d) commercial confidence, Section 8(1)(e) fiduciary relationship, Section 8(1)(g) endangerment of safety of officers involved in the process of inspection, Page 5 of 9 Section 8(1)(g) personal information and identity of individuals. Inspection reports contain personal details of inspection committee members together with confidential observations relating to third parties including teaching and non-teaching staff. Such information is shared with the Board in a fiduciary and confidential capacity Disclosure would defeat the integrity of the inspection mechanism and compromise third-party privacy rights. C. REGARDING REQUEST FOR CERTIFIED COPIES
1. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates proactive disclosure so that the public has minimal need to invoke the Act. Accordingly, wherever information was already available in the public domain, authenticated web links were provided.
2. Wherever information was not available online but existed in records, certified copies were furnished (Annexure B to E).
D. PRAYER In view of the foregoing facts and submissions, it is respectfully submitted that:
1. The information available on record at the time of disposal of the RTI application was duly furnished by the then Officiating CPIO.
2. Any remaining documents subsequently traced have now been provided along with this submission. There has been no deliberate denial, suppression, or malafide withholding of information. Exemptions claimed are within the framework of Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. It is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Commission may kindly consider dismissing the present Second Appeal; or pass such other order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case ."
7. During hearing, the CPIO handed over a copy of his written submission to the Appellant, which is taken on record.
8. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant stated that reply furnished by the CPIO initially was incomplete and true information was not provided to the Appellant. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant alleged that affiliation has been granted to the School by CBSE without proper verification of the documents submitted by the concerned School. In this regard, the Appellant filed the representation urging for the action taken, however, no fruitful response was received from the CBSE. Appellant alleged that School is not having proper infrastructure and it was running against the norms established by CBSE. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant prayed the Commission to intervene in the matter.
9. CPIO while concluding his submission that a point wise updated reply along with relevant permissible information, as sought by the Appellant was already provided to him in the first instance and again vide written statement.
Further, the issues flagged by the Appellant is a matter of grievance which cannot resolved under the mandate of RTI Act, 2005. The Appellant has an Page 6 of 9 option to file grievance on the PG portal on which the CBSE may take appropriate action, as deemed feasible. On point No. 6 of RTI application, CPIO made additional clarification that inspection report of Committee for granting affiliation to the school contain elements of personal information of third- parties which cannot disclosed in view of Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Even otherwise, as a part of mandatory disclosure under Section 4 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 and as per CBSE Bye- Laws of 2018 regarding affiliation the School is under obligation to provide You Tube link regarding video of inspection on their website, which is usually complied by all the schools received affiliation from CBSE. On oral directions of the Bench, the CPIO agreed to file a revised written statement in response to point No. 6 of RTI application incorporating the facts as stated in the hearing.
10. Post hearing, the Commission is in receipt of a revised written statement on point No. 6 of RTI application from the CPIO, which is taken on record. A copy of the same was provided to the Appellant through email. Decision:
11. Heard the parties at length.
12. On going through the submissions of the parties and perusal of records, the Commission observed, at the outset that the core issue raised in the instant matters is not as much as about seeking access to information per se rather it is about redressal of Appellant's grievance regarding withdrawal of her guidance ship/ supervision in the mid-phase and alleged humiliation faced by her.
13. It is noteworthy that CPIO is supposed to provide only such information as is held in the office records and as permissible under the RTI Act, 2005 and not the ones which are not held by the Public Authority and those which are exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, the Commission relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of Page 7 of 9 assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied)
14. As far as jurisdiction of Commission is concerned, a reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied).
15. The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
16. While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Page 8 of 9
17. Nonetheless, as far as RTI Application in question is concerned, it was suitably replied to the Appellant earlier and now vide written statement of CPIO which is in terms of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the Appellant failed to substantiate the ground of dissatisfaction vis-à-vis reply of the CPIO's to the RTI application in question. The written statement filed by the CPIO is comprehensive and self-explanatory which adequately addresses the queries raised by the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. A copy of which was already supplied to the Appellant through email.
18. In light of the above, no relief can be granted in the matter.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लग ं ी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर्सत्यानपर्प्रनर्) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri Gurjeet Singh Chawla Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)