Central Information Commission
Shishir Chand vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 27 February, 2026
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईिद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CBSED/A/2025/602038
SHISHIR CHAND .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY
EDUCATION, RTI Cell, P.S.,
1-2, INDUSTRIAL AREA, I. P.
EXTENSION, PATPARGANJ,DELHI-110092 .... ि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 : 19.10.2024
CPIO replied on : 11.11.2024
First appeal filed on : 15.11.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 31.12.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11.01.2025
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.10.2024 seeking the following information:
"Sir, I would like to have the following information under RTI Act. 1. The percentage of marks obtained by Mr. Jai AnantDehadrai in CBSE Senior Secondary Exam i.e. 12th standard. Mr. Jai Dehadrai was a student of DPS R.K Puram, New Delhi and passed the aforesaid exam in 2006."Page 1 of 4
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 11.11.2024 stating as under:
"Please see the link of below given circular regarding calculation of percentile:
https://www.cbse.gov.in/cbsenew/documents/Calculation_Percentag e_Class_X_XII_30 -112023.pdf."
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.11.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 31.12.2024, upheld reply of the CPIO.
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 Shishir Chand, present in person. Respondent: Dr.RamdasShivhare, US present in person.
5. Written statement filed by the Appellant is taken on record.
6. Appellant pleaded that Shri Jai AnantDehadrai percentage of 12th marks of which has been sought by him is alleged to have passed the examination and also obtained law degree on fraudulent basis. Appellant stated that person concerned betrayed him in pursuing a Court Case of his brother. To expose the fraudulent activity of this Advocate, the information was sought by the Appellant, however, he expressed his dissatisfaction to the fact that information was not provided by the CPIO of CBSE till date. Further, the FAA also not considered his plea while disposing the First Appeal. Hence, this Second Appeal before the Commission seeking justice in the matter.
7. CPIO apprised the Bench at the outset that Appellant has sought percentage of marks of Shri , since the percentage of marks are not issued in the marksheet of Class X and Class XII, therefore, relevant prevailing Circulars as available in the CBSE records were provided to the Appellant. Even otherwise, if liberal view is accorded to the information sought by the Appellant, it is noteworthy that marksheet as sought by the Appellant pertains to personal information of third-party which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the CPIO expressed his Page 2 of 4 inability to facilitated requested information to the Appellant in terms of the RTI Act, 2005.
8. Decision:
9. Heard the parties.
10. Considering the facts of this matter, the Commission arrives at the conclusion that dissatisfaction of the Appellant vis-à-vis reply of CPIO to the instant RTI application is bereft of merits as the information sought by the Appellant regarding percentage of marks of Shri Jai AnantDehadrai (third- party) is not issued by the CBSE in the Class X and Class XII mark sheet. Further, the disclosure of mark sheet of the third party as sought by the Appellant invades the privacy of the person concerned which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, the Commission relies on a judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled GirishRamchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner &Ors. (SLP (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012) decided on 03.10.2012.It is also noteworthy that Section 44 (3) of Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act 2023 was brought into force w.e.f. 14.11.2025 which establishes that Public Authority, no longer requires to justify withholding personal data by weighing Public interest against privacy.
11. Having observed as 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 (सू चनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Page 3 of 4 Shri SHISHIR CHAND Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)