Rabiya Khatoon vs Aligarh Muslim University on 24 September, 2021

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Rabiya Khatoon vs Aligarh Muslim University on 24 September, 2021

Bench: Saroj Punhani

                               के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                            बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

File No : CIC/ALMUV/A/2019/121573

Rabiya Khatoon                                          ......अपीलकता /Appellant

                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम


CPIO,
Department of Surgery, J.N
Medical College, Aligarh
Muslim University, Aligarh
202002, Uttar Pradesh.                             .... ितवादीगण /Respondent


Date of Hearing                   :   23/09/2021
Date of Decision                  :   23/09/2021

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :            Saroj Punhani

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on          :   22/12/2018
CPIO replied on                   :   19/01/2019
First appeal filed on             :   07/03/2019
First Appellate Authority order   :   04/04/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated        :   02/05/2019



Information sought

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.12.2018 seeking the following information;

1. ls without any l.D. proof, the Certificate of impotence can be issued? As issued by the Chairman, D/o Surgery in favour of Mr. Abdul Rehman S/o Abdul Ghaffar on 02.09.2014 or this certificate is issued on the basis of relationship?

2. lf the above certificate was issued on ID proof, so that a certified copy of ID proof of Mr. Abdul Rehman S/o Mr. Abdul Ghaffar may kindly be provided.

The CPIO/ Aligarh Muslim University replied to the appellant on 19.01.2019 stating as follows:-

"No further information available in this Department."

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.03.2019. FAA's order dated 04.04.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of non- receipt of information. She further raised her grievance regarding the matrimonial dispute between her and the concerned third party.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through audio-conference.

Respondent: Represented by Mohd. Aslam, Professor present through audio- conference.

The Appellant reiterated the contents of her Second Appeal as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs on which the Commission apprised the Appellant that the medical records of a third party pertains to their personal information disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.

The Rep. of CPIO submitted that a factual reply has already been given to the Appellant.

Decision:

The Commission upon a perusal of records observes that the information sought for at point no. 1 does not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act as the Appellant has sought clarification from the CPIO based on hypothesis. Furthermore, the averred medical certificate of concerned person as sought for at point no. 2 pertains to personal information of a concerned party disclosure of which would cause unwarranted of a third party and thus stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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 2010wherein 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..."

In view of the foregoing, no further relief can be granted in the matter.

However , the Appellant is advised to pursue her matrimonial dispute through a court of law.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission