Central Information Commission
Gurmeet Singh vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 27 February, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CBSED/A/2025/102100
GURMEET SINGH .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,
RTI Cell, INTEGRATED OFFICE COMPLEX,
SECTOR - 23, PHASE-I, DWARKA,
NEW DELHI - 110077 .... ितवादीगण /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 : 28.10.2024
CPIO replied on : 14.11.2024
First appeal filed on : 27.11.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 02.01.2025
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 17.01.2025
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.10.2024 seeking the following information:-
"1. बताया जाए िक िकसी िव ाथ के पहले िपता की मौत के बाद उसकी माता जी के ारा दू सरी शादी करने के बाद उस मिहला की पहले पित से ई संतान के CBSE बोड के 10 वीं एं व 12 वीं क ा के ीिफकेट पर उसके दू सरे िपता का नाम दज करवाने के िलए Page 1 of 6 उस िव ाथ के दू सरे िपता का नाम सरकारी गजट म िनकलवाना अिनवाय होता है ? पुण िववरण सिहत बताएं ।
2. बताया जाए िक िकसी िव ाथ के पहले िपता की मौत के बाद उसकी माता जी के ारा दू सरी शादी करने के बाद उस मिहला की पहले पित से ई संतान के CBSE बोड के 10 वी एं व 12 वीं क ा के ट िफकेट पर उसके दू सरे िपता का नाम दज करवाने के िलए Notry Public से स ािपत करवाई गई Addoption Deed, CBSE म मा होती है ?
क) यिद Notry Public से स ािपत करवाई गई Addoption Deed, CBSE बोड के 10 वीं एवं 12 वीं क ा के ीिफकेट पर दू सरे िपता का नाम दज करवाने के िलए मा नहीं होती है तो िकस िनयम/ कानून/ ल/आदे श के तहत मा नहीं होती। पूण िववरण सिहत बताएं ।
3. यिद CBSE बोड के 10 वीं एवं 12 वीं क ा के ीिफकेट पर उसके दू सरे िपता का नाम दज करवाने के िलए उस िव ाथ के दू सरे िपता का नाम सरकारी गजट म िनकलवाना अिनवाय होता है तो िकस िनयम/ कानून/ ल / आदे श के तहत इन द ावेजों की आव कता होती है । उस/उन िनयम/ कानून/ ल/आदे श की स ािपत फोटोकापी दे ने का क कर व जानकारी पुण िववरण सिहत बताए।
4 बाया जाए िक िकसी िव ाथ के पहले िपता की मौत के बाद उसकी माता जी के ारा दू सरी शादी करने के बाद उस मिहला की पहले पित से ई सतान के CBSE बोड के 10 वी एव 12 वीं क ा के ीिफकेट पर उसके दू सरे िपता का नाम दज करवाने के िलए िकन-िकन द ावेजों की आव कता होती है और िकस िनयम/ कानून/ ल/अ तहत इन द ावेजों की आव कता होती है । उस / उन् िनयम/ कानून/ ल/आदे श की स ािपत फोटोकापी दे ने का क कर व जानकारी पुण िववरण सिहत बताएं । के
5. बताया जाए िक कोई ऐसा िव ाथ िजसके पहले िपता की मौत के बाद उसकी माता जी के ारा दू सरी शादी करने के बाद वह िव ाथ 18 वष का हो जाता है और उसकी Addoption Deed. िकसी कारणवश िकसी भी ायालय म िकसी ायाधीश से पंिजकृत नहीं होती तो ऐसी थत म उस िव ाथ के CBSE बोड के 10 वीं एवं 12 वीं क ा के ीिफकेट पर उसके दू सरे िपता का नाम दज करवाने के िलए ा- ा औपचा रकताएं पूरी करनी पड़ती है । पुण िववरण सिहत बताए ।"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 14.11.2024 stating as under:
"1. बोड ारा जारी द ावे जों म िपता के नाम मे पू णता बदलाव हे तु बोड की परी ा िनयमवाली के िनयम सं ा 69.1(iv) के अनुसार सरकारी गजट म अिधसूिचत करना आव क है । (संगलन)।
2. मां गी गयी जानकारी जन सूचना की धारा 2 (1) के अंतगत नहीं आती। इसके अित र प रप सं ा CBSE/Coord/AS(C) 2017 िदनां क 01.02.2018 (संगलन) का अवलोकन करे िजसमे माननीय कोट के आदे श आव क है व Adoption Deed Page 2 of 6 आव क है तथा Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) के भी आदे श ुत कर सकते ह।
3. िब दु सं ा 01 का अवलोकन करे ।
4. सभी आव क व सहायक द ावेज जैसे की पहले पित का मृ ु माण प । दू सरी शादी का िववाह माण प व माननीय कोट के आदे श आव क है ।
5. िब दु स ा 02 का अवलोकन करे ।
आपके ारा मां गी गयी जानकारी लीसरे प से संब त है जो जन सूचना की धारा 8 (1)
(e), (j) के तहत दान नहीं की जा सकती!"
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.11.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 02.01.2025, stated as under :-
"जन सूचना अिधकारी ारा िदया गया उ र सही है तथा बोड के िनयमानुसार है तथा इसके अित र अ आव क द ावेज़ जोिक इस कार है :-
(1) Affidavit from Executive Magistrate.
(ii) 2d Marriage Certificate.
(iii) Newspaper cutting where the information of change of father name has been published and Gazette Notification.
(iv) Class-10/12th documents of the candidate
(v) Aadhaar Card of candidate and parents and other public documents and Death Certificate of Biological father.
(vi) Registered Adoption Deed for legal proof."
4. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Gurmeet Singh, present in person. Respondent: Shri M K Pathak, U.S., present in person.
5. Appellant while narrating the genesis of instant matter being non- amendment of his name in the matriculation certificate of his step daughter which led to hindrance in her career progression because due to change father's name in the passport and matriculation certificate, the Appellant's daughter could not be able to pursue any course in abroad. In this regard, though with the request of Appellant necessary modification were carried out Page 3 of 6 in the passport of his step daughter, however, the CBSE did not adhere to his request. Hence, the Appellant filed the RTI application seeking information in this regard, the Appellant did not contest the merits of CPIO's reply, as such. However, he expressed his concern to the fact that his request for amended matriculation certificate was still not carried out. Hence, this Second Appeal before the Commission seeking indulgence in the matter.
6. CPIO stated that point-wise reply along with list of necessary documents which are prerequisite mandatory conditions to be fulfilled by the Appellant for necessary changes were informed to the Appellant. However, the CPIO stated that Appellant did not bring the CARA (Central Adoption Resource Authority) order for necessary changes in the certificate. Therefore, the CBSE Board expressed its inability to adhere to the request of the Appellant. CPIO apprised the Bench that since the daughter of the Appellant attained the age of majority as on date, therefore, request of the Appellant can be fulfilled only on the directions of the Court of Law.
Decision:
7. Heard the parties at length.
8. 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 matter is not as much as about seeking access to information per se rather it is about redressal of Appellant's grievance regarding non-amendment of matriculation certificate of his step daughter and asking for clarifications from the CPIO in this regard.
9. From the standpoint of RTI Act, 2005 the replies furnished by CPIO and FAA along with the list of relevant documents are as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005, merits of which cannot be called into question.
10. It is noteworthy that CPIO is supposed to provide only such information as is held in the office records and is permissible under the RTI Act, 2005 and not the ones which are not held by the Public Authority and is 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:
Page 4 of 6"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 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)
11. 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).
12. The aforesaid rationale finds rapport 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."
13. While, the Apex Court in the matter ofUnion 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 Page 5 of 6 more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied)
14. In light of above discussions, no relief can be granted in the matter.
15. Appellant is at liberty to pursue his grievance before a competent Court of Law in the interest of justice.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लग ं ी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri GURMEET SINGH Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)