Central Information Commission
Sujatha Nott vs Cabinet Secretariat on 20 May, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CABST/A/2024/643455
Sujatha Nott ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Cabinet Secretariat ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 28.06.2024 FA : 07.08.2024 SA : 28.09.2024
CPIO : 16.07.2024 FAO : 19.09.2024 Hearing : 08.04.2026
Date of Decision: 19.05.2026
CORAM
Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
ORDER
1. Dr. Subash Babu filed an RTI Application dated 28.06.2024 before the CPIO, Department of Health Research, seeking information as under:
"SUBJECT: Request for Information Regarding the Shortlisting Process and Selection of Candidates for the Vacancy of the DG-ICMR/Secretary DHR Position in 2022 CONTEXT: I am Dr. Subash Babu, Scientific Director of ICER India in Chennai. In June 2022, I applied for the DG-ICMR/Secretary DHR position, meeting all qualifications. Despite prompt submission of requested information to ICMR, there was no further communication.Page 1 of 12 Second Appeal No.
CIC/CABST/A/2024/643455 Please Copy and paste the following link for my email correspondence with ICMR in reference to the vacancy of the DG-ICMR/Secretary DHR position in 2022: www.tinyurl.com/DG-ICMR-Sec-DHR-2022 INFORMATION REQUEST:
Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, I request:
1. Criteria and Policy:
-Detailed criteria and policy for DG-ICMR/Secretary DHR selection per Section 4(1)(c) of the RTI Act.
2. Reason for Non-Selection for interview:
-Specific reasons for non-selection despite meeting eligibility under Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
-Any aspects of my application not meeting criteria?
3. Selection Process Details:
-Complete process for candidate selection, including criteria used and committee qualifications per Section 4(1)(c) of the RTI Act.
--Any aspects of my application not meeting criteria?
4. Evaluation of My Application:
-Reasons for non-shortlisting given qualifications under Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
-Any aspects of my application not meeting criteria?
5. Communication and Feedback:
Why no communication after submitting June 2022 requested information? (Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act)
--Any aspects of my application not meeting criteria?
6. Consideration for Other High-Level Positions in ICMR:
Page 2 of 12 Second Appeal No.CIC/CABST/A/2024/643455
-I was interviewed for other positions in 2023, which were not pursued due to personal reasons. Why was I not shortlisted for DG-ICMR/Secretary DHR vacancy in 2022? (Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act).
7. Comparison with Subsequent Application:
-Applied for Additional DG-ICMR in 2023 with same eligibility, favorably considered. Clarify evaluation differences with DG-ICMR/Secretary DHR (Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act)."
2. The RTI Application was transferred to the CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat on 28.06.2024 through the RTI online portal. The CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat replied to the RTI Application on 16.07.2024, stating as under:
"2. In this regard, only material information in the form of circulars/orders/memos, etc can be provided under the RTI Act. Further, your request pertains to records/documents related to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC). It is informed that the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, vide order dated 12.07.2010 in LPA No.347/2010 and connected matters, has granted stay on operation of order dated 30.11.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.8396/2009 titled as Union of India vs CIC & Anr which inter-alia directed disclosure of ACC related records/file notings, etc. The matter is subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the stay granted is still in operation. In view of this, the requested information cannot be provided under Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act, 2005 at this stage."
3. Against the above reply, the Appellant, Dr. Sujatha Nott, filed a First Appeal on 07.08.2024, stating as under:
"Summary:
I, Dr. Sujatha Nott, am filing a first appeal under the RTI Act, 2005 concerning the response received from Shri S. Lianlalmuan, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Cabinet Secretariat. The response, dated July 16, 2024, addressed Dr. Subash Babu RTI request (Ref. No. CABST/R/X/24/00017, dated June 15, 2024).Page 3 of 12 Second Appeal No.
CIC/CABST/A/2024/643455 Grounds for Appeal:
(1) Denial of information: The CPIO cited a stay order from the High Court of Delhi (July 12, 2010, in LPA No. 347/2010) for non-disclosure of information. However, the request pertains to understanding the selection process and reasons for non-selection for the short-list for the position of DG-ICMR/Secretary DHR, which should not be obstructed by the stay order.
(2) Requirement for Material Information: The CPIO stated that only circulars/orders/memos can be provided under RTI. The RTI Act, 2005, also requires disclosure of reasons for administrative decisions to the affected person (Section 4(1)(d)). The criteria and reasons for non-selection should be disclosed.
(3) Lack of Further Engagement: Dr. Subash Babu provided requested information in response to an email from Mr. Himanshu Mehrotra on June 22, 2022. There was no follow-up communication, which requires clarification.
Email Correspondence:
Dr. Babu provided his date of birth and supplemental application materials as requested. The lack of further engagement needs explanation.
Prayer:
-Please reconsider the CPIO's decision and provide the requested information per the RTI Act, 2005.
-If some information is non-disclosable, please provide the segregable portions.
-Kindly clarify why there was no further engagement with Dr. Babu after his response.
Disclaimer:
Dr. Subash Babu has opted not to exercise the right to seek information under the RTI Act, 2005 due to specific circumstances. In my capacity as a concerned Non Resident Indian, I, Dr. Sujatha Nott, am independently filing this appeal to uphold transparency and accountability. Please be advised that Dr. Subash Babu is not aware of this appeal and has no involvement in this matter."Page 4 of 12 Second Appeal No.
CIC/CABST/A/2024/643455
4. The FAA & US, Cabinet Secretariat vide order dated 19.09.2024 held as under:
"BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
Dr. Ramesh Babu, vide RTI application No. CABST/R/X/24/00017 dated 28.06.2024, partially transferred by Department of Health Research, had requested information in respect of shortlisting process and selection of Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research-cum-Secretary, D/o Health Research. The CPIO, ACC Cell, Cabinet Secretariat, vide letter dated 16.07.2024, had disposed of the said RTI application by furnishing information that can be disclosed.
APPEAL:
2. Dr. Sujata Nott has filed online RTI Appeal No.CABST/A/E/24/00070 on the grounds that CPIO has denied the requisite information to Dr. Ramesh Babu, the RTI applicant, and that the RTI Act, 2005 mandates the disclosure of reasons for administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to the affected persons. Dr. Nott has requested to review the decision of CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat and provide requested information. It is also requested that in case the requested information is still considered non-disclosable under Section (8)(1)(i) of the RTI Act, the segregable portion that does not fall under this exemption may be provided.
BACKGROUND OF THE DECISION:
3 The undersigned has gone through the facts of the case and the case record in detail. CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat had informed Dr. Suresh Bahu that only the material information in the form of circulars/orders/memos, etc. can be provided under the RTI Act.
CPIO had also informed that the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) records/file notings, etc. are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) (i) of the RTI Act, 2005 in view of stay granted vide interim order dated 12.07.2010 by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LPA No. 347/2010 and connected matters.
4 It is also noted that the appellant in the present Appeal, namely Dr. Sujatha Nott, a Non-Resident Indian, is not the original applicant of the RTI request registration No. Page 5 of 12 Second Appeal No. CIC/CABST/A/2024/643455 CABST/R/X/24/00017 dated 28.06.2024. In the Appeal, it has been mentioned that Dr. Subash Babu, the original applicant of the RTI request dated 28.06.2024, is not pursing this RTI appeal due to certain circumstances and that he is not aware of this Appeal and has no involvement in this matter.
5. Notwithstanding the above, the Appeal is being considered valid. As the First Appellate Authority, I have reviewed the RTI application of Dr. Subhash Babu, partially transferred by D/o Health Research on 28.06.2024 to CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat, as well as the reply of the CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat dated 16.07.2024. It is observed that the CPIO had furnished reply to aforementioned RTI application within the stipulated time frame of 30 days, and the information liable to be furnished under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, was duly provided.
6 It is also observed that under the RTI Act, 2005, only such information can be supplied which already exists and is held by the Public Authority or held under the control of the Public Authority. The Act does not mandate or require public authorities to provide explanations or reasons for their decisions, whether administrative or quasi-judicial or create new information or offer justifications that are not already recorded.
7. As regards disclosure of the ACC records, it is further observed that:
The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) related records/file notings, etc. are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(i) of RTI Act, 2005 in view of stay granted vide interim order dated 12.07.2010 by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LPA No. 347/2010 and connected matters on operation of judgment and order dated 30.11.2009 passed by learned single judge in WP(C) No. 8396/2009 titled as Union of India vs CIC & Anr which directed, interalia, disclosure of the ACC record/file noting, etc.
(ii) The LPA(s) filed in the matter raises several questions of law for adjudication by the High Court of Delhi. These include whether the records of deliberations of the ACC could be disclosed even if the process is over, whether the records of ACC containing the deliberations of the Cabinet Secretary and other officers can be disclosed completely, Page 6 of 12 Second Appeal No. CIC/CABST/A/2024/643455 whether the note for ACC and its adjunct are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act, 2005, etc.
(iii) The Division Bench of High Court, vide order dated 15.03.2017, has listed the above referred LPA No.347/2010 and connected matters in the category of 'Regular Matters'.
(iv) Over the years, CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat as well as the CPIOs of the ACC's Secretariat have consistently taken this stand before CIC in respect of disclosure of ACC related records, file notings, etc. Further, the Hon'ble CIC in different matters has opined that since the matter regarding disclosure of ACC record/file noting etc. is sub-judice before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it would be appropriate to await the final outcome of the High Court of Delhi. Such rulings given by CIC include decision No. CIC/SB/C/2016/900008 dated 28.02.2017, No. CIC/DoP&T/A/2017/316289/MP dated 15.09.2017, No. CIC/CABST/A/2017/171244 dated 14.06.2018, No. CIC/CABST/A/2018/617298 dated 02.08.2019 and subsequent others such decisions. As such, disclosure of ACC records relating to shortlisting process and selection of Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research-cum-Secretary, D/o Health Research, as sought by the applicant and the appellant vide RTI application and RTI Appeal, cannot be provided at this stage.
DECISION:
8. The undersigned has gone through the facts of the case and the case record in detail. I find that the CPIO, ACC Cell, Cabinet Secretariat has furnished reply with due application of mind and reply furnished is in line with the consistent stand being taken on disclosure of ACC related records, file notings, etc. as well as the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. This appeal is accordingly disposed of."
5. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 17.09.2024, inter alia, stating as under:
"Background:Page 7 of 12 Second Appeal No.
CIC/CABST/A/2024/643455 Since 2021, ICER staff have faced significant pushback when applying for ICMR/ Gol positions. Dr. Babu met and exceeded the eligibility criteria for the post of DG-ICMR, but was not even shortlisted when he applied for the vacancy in 2022.
An RTI application (Reg. No. DOHRE/R/E/24/00201) was submitted under Dr. Subash Babu's name to the Department of Health Research (DHR), requesting information on the shortlisting and selection process for the position of Director General - ICMR cum Secretary, DHR. DHR transferred the RTI to the Cabinet Secretariat (Reg No. CABST/R/X/24/00017) for further response.
The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Cabinet Secretariat denied the requested information, citing a stay order issued by the Delhi High Court, which restricts the disclosure of documents related to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) (CPIO S. Lianlalmuan Response). However, the requested information pertains to the shortlisting criteria and procedural details, which are distinct from ACC deliberations.
I then filed a first appeal, as the denial of information on grounds of procedural transparency and public accountability should not fall under the exemption cited.
The First Appellate Authority (FAA), Shri Anand Singh Khati, upheld the CPIO's decision. In addition, the FAA's response included errors in the name of the RTI applicant, referring to Dr. Subash Babu variously as "Ramesh Babu," "Suresh Bahu," and "Subhash Babu" (FAA reply). These discrepancies raise concerns regarding the accuracy of the review process.
Additional Context:
Since 2021, ICER has faced substantial challenges due to operational changes implemented by ICMR. These challenges have included significant salary cuts for ICER staff, and they have not received any salary since February 1, 2024. Additionally, they were verbally instructed to cease work on April 1, 2024, without any formal communication from NIH or ICMR regarding their employment status. Even before these salary cuts, ICER staff were already being paid significantly less than their ICMR counterparts, as their salaries were not revised following the implementation of the 7th Page 8 of 12 Second Appeal No. CIC/CABST/A/2024/643455 Central Pay Commission (7CPC). Furthermore, ICER staff have never been provided with Travel Allowance (TA) or Dearness Allowance (DA) for fieldwork, a benefit routinely given to their ICMR colleagues working on the same projects. Since 2010, the salaries and benefits of ICER staff have been determined at the discretion of ICMR, contributing to these longstanding disparities. Additionally, ICER staff have faced discrimination when applying for positions within ICMR.
In an effort to resolve these ongoing issues, over 60 RTIs and grievance petitions have been filed with ICMR, NIRT, the Department of Health Research (DHR), and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW). These petitions remain unresolved.
It is important to clarify that Dr. Subash Babu did not personally file the original RTI request in June 2024. The application was prepared and submitted by the ICER staff, who used Dr. Babu's name without his direct involvement, providing Dr. Babu's name and email in the online application form. Despite Dr. Babu subsequently explaining to his superiors at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other relevant authorities that he was not responsible for the submission of the RTI, he has faced retaliation from both ICMR and NIH. This retaliation persists even though Dr. Babu was not personally involved in the submission. Furthermore, Dr. Babu has no knowledge or involvement in this RTI appeal either.
Grounds for Appeal:
1. Errors in Applicant Identification: The First Appellate Authority has repeatedly referred to Dr. Subash Babu by incorrect names (Ramesh Babu, Suresh Bahu, and Subhash Babu), indicating a lack of due diligence in reviewing the case (FAA Shri Anand Khati reply). This raises serious questions about the proper consideration of my appeal and suggests that the process may have been compromised.
2. Denial of Information Under Incorrect Grounds: While the CPIO and FAA both cite the stay order by the Delhi High Court, the information sought does not relate to ACC records but to the selection process for a public office. The request pertains to criteria, shortlisting, and reasons for non-selection, which are essential for transparency and are Page 9 of 12 Second Appeal No. CIC/CABST/A/2024/643455 unrelated to the deliberations of the ACC(CABST1Appeal) (CPIO S. Lianlalmuan reply).
The stay order does not justify withholding this procedural information under Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act.
3. Requirement for Disclosure Under Section 4(1)(d) : As per Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, authorities are required to disclose reasons for administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons. Dr. Subash Babu, being an applicant for the post of DG- ICMR cum Secretary-DHR, has the right to know the specific reasons for his non- selection(CABST1 Appeal).
Failure to Provide Segregable Information: The FAA failed to address my request to provide any segregable portions of the information that do not fall under Section 8(1)(i) Even if the ACC records are exempt, the procedural details and selection criteria are not. The FAA's refusal to provide any information at all violates the spirit of the RTI Act, which favors transparency (FAA Anand Khati)."
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
6. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. On behalf of the Respondent, Sunil Kumar, SO & CPIO attended the hearing in person.
7. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the RTI Applicant and the observations recorded in the FAA's order.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, observes at the very outset that the material on record raises a serious concern regarding the extent to which the mandate of the RTI Act has been misused by the Appellant without any locus standi in the matter. The peculiarity of the instant case lies in the fact that Dr. Sujatha Nott, the Appellant states to be pursuing the instant First & Second Appeal(s) in respect of a RTI Application filed by Dr. Subash Babu, without his knowledge and his inclination to pursue the RTI matter. At the same time, Dr. Sujatha Nott claims that Dr. Subash Babu did not even file this RTI Application, his name and email address were supposedly used by some 'ICER staff' and that Dr. Subash Babu has even pleaded ignorance of this RTI Application to his superiors. Yet, the contents of the RTI Application start with a loud and Page 10 of 12 Second Appeal No. CIC/CABST/A/2024/643455 clear self-declaration that Dr. Subash Babu is filing it, enclosing his own emails and appeals to ICMR etc. as reference documents for explaining the background of the points raised in the RTI Application, summarily wanting to know the reasons for not considering his candidature for the post of DG-ICMR/Secretary DHR. Now, through the First and Second Appeal(s), Dr. Sujatha Nott wants to pursue the issue of Dr. Subash's non- selection/consideration.
9. It is noticed that the CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat failed to take notice that the RTI queries merely sought reasons/clarifications under the garb of Section 4 of the RTI Act, without conforming to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. For the said reason, the CPIO's reply referring to the pending litigation or Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act was not appropriate in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.
10. Subsequently, the FAA, Cabinet Secretariat dwelt on the inadmissibility of disclosure of records of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC), instead of restricting the disposal of the First Appeal to the aspect of Appellant's locus standi, even after observing at para 4 of the order that- "In the Appeal, it has been mentioned that Dr, Subash Babu, the original applicant of the RTI request dated 28.06.2024, is not pursing this RTI appeal due to certain circumstances and that he is not aware of this Appeal and has no involvement in this matter". Besides, even by way of liberal interpretation, the information in respect of the candidature of Dr. Subash Babu, being his personal information in terms of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, viz-a-viz, Dr. Sujatha Nott could not have been disclosed, which further renders the FAA's discussion in respect of ACC records as unwarranted. The FAA is therefore cautioned to be careful while dealing with the First Appeal in future.
11. The Appeal is dismissed as ab initio not maintainable.
A copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Page 11 of 12 Second Appeal No.CIC/CABST/A/2024/643455 Sd/-
(Raj Kumar Goyal) (राज कुमार गोयल)
Chief Information Commissioner (मु सूचना आयु )
िदनां क/Date: 19.05.2026
Authenticated true copy
Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार)
Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक)
011-26186535
Page 12 of 12 Second Appeal No.
CIC/CABST/A/2024/643455
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)