Central Information Commission
Rupesh Kumar Jha vs Iim Jammu on 30 March, 2026
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/IIMJM/A/2025/625812
Rupesh Kumar Jha .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO
Indian Institute of Management Jammu,
RTI Cell, Jagti, National Highway-44, Jammu,
J & K-181221 .... तवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19.03.2026
Date of Decision : 19.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.03.2025
CPIO replied on : 09.04.2025
First appeal filed on : 23.04.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 16.05.2025
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.06.2025
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.03.2025 seeking the following information:
"Reference: Ragging complaint bearing ref. no. JK_0052 reported on the National Anti-ragging helpline, reported from your institution. Details of Information Sought:
1) Provide a copy of anti-ragging committee report created for the complaint mentioned above.Page 1 of 11
2) Provide copies of all internal communications in reference to the abovementioned complaint.
3) Provide information on the date on which this complaint was reported to the institution.
4) Provide information on if the complaint mentioned above was submitted anonymously or with the complainant s name.
5) Please provide information on the disciplinary action taken regarding the complaint mentioned above."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 09.04.2025 stating as under:
"the relevant records and details may be obtained directly from the UGC Anti-Ragging Cell, who are the custodians of the final compiled information in this regard"
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.04.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 16.05.2025, stating as under-
"The details of complaint and the proceedings are confidential in nature and the action taken has already been communicated to the concerned authority at UGC who are now the custodian of the document as they had sought the report.
Further the issue is not of public interest and hence fall under Section 8(1)(j) and Section 8(2) of the RTI Act 2005."
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 Rupesh Kumar Jha along with Shri Shubham Kumar present in person.
Respondent: Dr. Vaibhav Gupta, Asst. Admn. Officer along with Dr. Kapil, Chairperson, Anti Ragging Cell present through video conference.
5. Written statement filed by the Appellant and CPIO are taken on record.
6. Appellant in the course of arguments invited attention of the Bench towards the contents of his written statements. Relevant extracts of which are reproduced below for the ease of reference -
Page 2 of 11"...The request included a copy of the internal Anti-Ragging Committee report, all related internal communications, the date the complaint was reported to the institution, the disclosure of whether the complaint was anonymous, and the details of any disciplinary action taken by the institution in response. In response to the aforementioned application, Respondent No. 1, vide reply dated 09/04/2025, denied the request by stating that the relevant records and details should be obtained directly from the UGC Anti- Ragging Cell, asserting that they are the primary custodians of the final compiled information in this matter.
2) That being aggrieved by the non-provision of a valid response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act on 23/04/2025 before Respondent No. 2. It is noteworthy that the Appellant annexed a formal application requesting a virtual hearing, citing binding orders of the Honourable Central Information Commission which mandate that a hearing must be granted during the first appeal process when explicitly requested by the appellant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA), in complete disregard of the cited Commission orders and in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, passed an order on 22/05/2025 without granting the requested hearing. The FAA not only reiterated the CPIO's stance regarding the UGC being the custodian but also unilaterally introduced a new ground for exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The FAA erroneously concluded that the proceedings are confidential, lack public interest, and are exempt under Sections 8(1)(j) and 8(2). REGARDING THE CPIO'S RESPONSE ASKING THE APPELLANT TO SEEK INFORMATION FROM UGC'S ANTIRAGGING CELL:
3) That the CPIO's response, directing the applicant to obtain information from the UGC Anti-Ragging Cell, is legally untenable and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of "custodianship" under the RTI Act. The report in question was prepared by the Institute itself. Under Section 2(j) of the RTI Act, the right to information includes the right to access the records "held by or under the control of" a public authority.
Consequently, any document originating within the Institute, such as the Anti-Ragging Committee report and related internal communications, remains a record under the Institute's control, regardless of whether a copy was subsequently shared with an external nodal agency like the UGC. Therefore, the refusal to provide this information on the pretext that it is also available with the UGC is both evasive and contrary to the letter and spirit of Page 3 of 11 the RTI Act. It is also pertinent to note, that all the communications between the UGC and the educational institutions, regarding ragging complaints, are done primarily through e-mail and is always accessible to institutions on their e-mail servers.
4) That the information requested in points (1) to (5), namely, copy of anti- ragging committee report, internal communications, the date of receipt of the complaint at the Institute, the mode of submission (anonymous or named), and the details of disciplinary action taken, are records generated and held primarily by the Institute. These are internal administrative actions and local institutional records that exist independently of any report subsequently shared with the UGC. The mere act of reporting a summary of the final action to an external regulatory body like the UGC does not divest the originating Public Authority of its status as the primary custodian of its own internal files and correspondence.
5) That, even if the CPIO's contention were to be accepted for the sake of argument, the CPIO failed to fulfill its statutory duty under the RTI Act. If the CPIO believed that the information was held by another public authority (the UGC), the appropriate recourse was to transfer the application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act within the prescribed five-day period.
6) That the conduct of the CPIO in this matter is in direct contravention of the settled legal position regarding the duties cast upon a Public Information Officers. The Appellant places reliance on the following authorities:
- In Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities"
whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers........" {Underlining by the Appellant}
- In R.K. Jain vs Union of India (LPA No. 369/2018), the Honourable Delhi High Court held:
"9........................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the Page 4 of 11 RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only."{Underlining by the Appellant} REGARDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY:
7) That the First Appellate Authority (FAA) acted in gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice by failing to provide the Appellant an opportunity for a hearing, despite an explicit application for a virtual hearing being annexed to the First Appeal. In doing so, the FAA completely ignored the settled law and the specific precedents cited by the Appellant, including Mohit Kumar Gupta Vs. CPIO, ICAI, New Delhi (CIC/ICAOI/A/2018/629505/00854) and R.K. Jain vs. Department of Legal Affairs, Government of India (CIC/SA/A/2014/000254). In the matter of R.K. Jain (Supra), the Honourable Central Information Commission categorically held:
"14. The Commission observes: Passing orders in first appeal without hearing or sending hearing notice is illegal and will render the order invalid. The Commission sets aside the order of First Appellate Authority for violating RTI Act and breach of natural justice by denying the appellant a chance of presenting his case and by raising entirely a new defence which was never claimed. Commission finds it deserves action though the concerned officer retired from service and recommends Public Authority to initiate disciplinary action against the concerned FAO for acting totally against the RTI Act in this case."{Underlining by the Appellant} Therefore, as per Commission's ruling in R.K. Jain (Supra), the order of the First Appellate Authority being non-est in the eyes of the law and deserves to be set aside for being a fundamental breach of the Right to Information Act and the principles of natural justice.
8) That the original reply of the CPIO was limited solely to the ground of "custodianship" and did not invoke any exemption clauses under Section 8(1) or 9 of the Act. Consequently, the Appellant's First Appeal was framed and argued strictly to rebut the CPIO's specific claim regarding the UGC being the custodian. By introducing a completely new exemption under Section 8(1)(j) at the appellate stage, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) denied the Appellant any opportunity to contest this fresh ground, thereby resulting in a gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice.Page 5 of 11
9) That the Appellant further submits that under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, the statutory mandate to decide on the disclosure or rejection of a request lies with the CPIO. The section reads:
"7. Disposal of request.--(1) Subject to the proviso to subsection (2) of section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be... shall... either provide the information... or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9."{Emphasis by the Appellant} It is clear, from the above provision, that the CPIO is the primary authority designated to frame and justify exemptions at the first instance. The FAA, by unilaterally introducing new exemptions that were never pleaded by the CPIO, has exceeded its quasi-judicial jurisdiction and acted as a primary adjudicator of exemptions, depriving the Appellant of the two tier remedy of appeal against such a rejection. This "improvement" upon the CPIO's reply by the FAA is legally impermissible and renders the appellate order sustainable only for being set aside.
10) That by denying a hearing and simultaneously introducing a new ground for exemption under Section 8(1)(j), which was never part of the CPIO's original reply, the FAA has acted as both judge and witness in its own cause. This "back-door" introduction of exemptions without allowing the Appellant to contest them is a textbook case of procedural impropriety. Per the Commission's ruling in R.K. Jain (Supra), such an order is non-est in the eyes of the law and deserves to be set aside for being a fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice.
REGARDING SECTION 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act:
11) That the information sought is not "personal information" as contemplated under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, but rather refers to the statutory and administrative discharge of duties by a Public Authority. A report generated by an Anti-Ragging Committee is a formal record of a quasi-judicial proceeding conducted under the mandate of the UGC Regulations on Curbing the Menace of Ragging, 2009. Such a report, along with the subsequent disciplinary actions and internal communications of the Institute, represents a statutory decision-making process of the Public Authority rather than the private affairs of any individual. There is a predefined public interest in ensuring that educational institutions comply with anti-ragging laws, and the outcome of such statutory inquiries Page 6 of 11 constitutes a matter of public record that cannot be shielded under the guise of personal privacy.
12) That the information sought pertains to an investigation into an act that is recognized as a serious criminal offense under the Jammu and Kashmir Prohibition of Ragging Act, 2011 (Act No. VI of 2011). Section 4 of the said Act explicitly mandates that whoever, directly or indirectly, commits, participates in, abets, or propagates ragging within or outside any educational institution shall, upon conviction, be punished with imprisonment for up to two years and a fine. Since ragging is a statutory offense and a crime against the State in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the records of an inquiry into such a criminal act cannot be suppressed under the garb of "personal information." The public has an overriding right to know how a Public Authority has dealt with a criminal occurrence on its premises, and shielding such information would amount to protecting the perpetrators of a crime rather than safeguarding any legitimate privacy interest.
13) That the information sought in its entirety fails to meet the legal threshold for exemption under Section 8(1)(j). The request for internal communications, the date of receipt of the complaint, the disclosure of whether it was anonymous, and the details of the disciplinary action taken are all matters of administrative record concerning the functioning of a public institution. These details do not constitute "personal information" that would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of any individual.
14) That the information sought does not originate from any individual's private records, nor does it "belong" to any person in a private capacity. On the contrary, this information is the result of a formal investigative process conducted by the Anti Ragging Committee of the Institute. The records--
including the inquiry report, internal notes, and findings--are the work product of a statutory body performing its official functions. Since these documents are collected and generated by the Committee through a formal administrative inquiry to determine the veracity of a complaint, they constitute the official record of the Public Authority's decision-making process. Therefore, such information cannot be treated as personal data, as it is an institutional record produced by an investigative mechanism established under the law.
15) That judicial and quasi-judicial orders, as well as FIRs, are available in the public domain to ensure transparency in the administration of justice. The Page 7 of 11 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India & Ors. directed that copies of FIRs should be uploaded on the official website of the State Police, as they are public documents. By the same logic, a report of an Anti-Ragging Committee - which investigates a statutory offense and culminates in disciplinary action - carries a similar status. Furthermore, since ragging is a crime against society and a violation of the J&K Prohibition of Ragging Act, 2011, the "proceedings" related to such a complaint cannot be treated as a private matter between the institution and the accused. Just as a judgment of a court or an order of the CIC is a public document, the final findings and the disciplinary actions taken by the IIM Jammu Anti Ragging Committee are public acts performed by public officials in their official capacity. Therefore, the invocation of Section 8(1)(j) to hide the outcome of a criminal investigation is legally unsustainable and contrary to the transparency standards established by the higher judiciary. REGARDING PUBLIC INTEREST AND SECTION 8(2) OF THE RTI ACT:
16) That the DPDP Act, which notified the amendment to the Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, came into force on Nov. 14-15, 2025, whereas the present RTI application and the First Appeal were filed and decided well before the full operationalization of the specific restrictive provisions of the DPDP Act. It is a settled principle of law that a statute affecting substantive rights is presumed to be prospective unless it is made retrospective by express enactment or necessary intendment.
Therefore, the Appellant's request must be governed by the unamended Section 8(1)(j), as the DPDP Act, 2023, does not contain any provision about retrospective effect.
17) That the Appellant further places reliance on the overriding mandate of Section 8(2) of the RTI Act, 2005, which stipulates as under:
"(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests." {Underlining by the Appellant} It is abundantly clear from the above provision, that all the exemptions outlined in Section 8(1) including section 8(1)(j) will have to make way for Public Interest.Page 8 of 11
18) That the urgent necessity for transparency in the matters related to Ragging is underscored by the alarming escalation of ragging incidents nationwide. According to the data released by the UGC Anti-Ragging Cell, a staggering 1,369 complaints were reported from institutions across the country between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2025. This period alone witnessed 6 confirmed suicides and one attempted suicide directly linked to ragging, contributing to a grim total of 51 suicides recorded between 2022 and 2024. These figures reveal a disturbing trend: ragging cases have not only shown a significant spike compared to the previous decade, but the nature of these incidents has grown increasingly severe, with a marked rise in fatalities. In such a high-stakes environment, where the lives and mental well-being of students are at risk, the actions taken by a premier public institution like IIM Jammu cannot remain shielded. Disclosing the details of institutional responses to such complaints is vital to ensure that safety protocols are not merely cosmetic and that the "openness culture"
envisioned by the RTI Act serves as a deterrent to this rising tide of violence.
19) That the disclosure of information concerning ragging is not a private matter but a compelling issue of "public interest" as defined by the highest judicial authorities...."
7. CPIO stated that reply intimating factual aspect of the matter has been provided to the Appellant initially by the CPIO and FAA itself. It was further clarified by the CPIO that on investigation it was found that there is no vigilance angle regarding allegation of ragging involved in the matter as the complainant student confessed that the complaint was filed in a heat of arguments with a revengeful thought.
Decision:
8. Heard the parties at length.
9. On-going through the facts of the Appeal in hand, the Commission noted that the main premise of instant Appeal was denial of request of information by the CPIO and FAA on contradictory grounds. On the other hand, the CPIO claimed that reply has been provided by the CPIO initially that information could be obtained from the Anti-Ragging Cell and later, the FAA while disposing the First Appeal concluded that information sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) and Section 8 (2) of the RTI Act, 2005, Page 9 of 11 however, it is noteworthy that the FAA has not discharged its onus for denial of request under Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act, as such.
10. During the course of arguments, the Bench pointed out to the Appellant whether he is the complainant or the affected party in the matter regarding Ragging complaint in question to which, the Appellant answered in negative. To this end, the Commission informed the Appellant that Anti Ragging Committee report and all internal communications as sought by him at point No. 1 and 2 of RTI application in question contain the elements of personal information, disclosure of which would apparently invade their privacy and that the complainant's identity cannot be disclosed under relevant Regulations of UGC which provided for filing complaints with the National Anti-Ragging helpline. The Appellant did not contest matter any further to point No. 1 & 2 of RTI application. However, it was the plea of the Appellant that information sought at point No. 3, 4 and 5 i.e. date of complaint, complaint admitted anonymous or in the name of complainant and action taken by disciplinary authority will by no stretch of imagination attracts Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
11. In the light of the above contentions made by the parties, it is to be understood that the University Grants Commission and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued guidelines, from time to time, mandate that the identity of the complainant and witnesses must be protected to prevent retaliation. The information sought is about a complaint filed with the National Anti- Ragging Helpline and if it is opted that the details are to be kept confidential and not parting with the information by the CPIO as sought by the Appellant under the RTI Act, 2005 is justifiable. It is the bounden duty of the Anti-Ragging Helpline team to ensure that the complainant's identity is not disclosed without consent, even when forwarding complaints to local University authorities. The online undertaking (affidavit) submitted by students and their parents is also considered confidential and is managed securely. Even otherwise, confidential surveys regarding Ragging conducted within Institutions are designed to be confidential by not sharing their specific user responses with the College administration.
12. In the light of the averred submissions and considering the limited prayer of the Appellant during hearing for seeking information for points No. 3, 4 and 5 of RTI application under reference, the Commission directed Dr. Page 10 of 11 Vaibhav Gupta, CPIO to provide a revised reply in response to point No. 3, 4 and 5 of RTI application with a copy marked to the Appellant.
13. In compliance of the directions of the Commission, Dr. Vaibhav Gupta, CPIO file a revised reply dated 19.03.2026 (copy marked to the Appellant) by giving revised updated information on point No. 3, 4 and 5 of RTI application, which is taken on record.
14. Therefore, the Commission finds no infirmity in the revised updated reply of the CPIO vide letter dated 19.03.2026 as the same was in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
15. Intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter, at this juncture.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णतस या पत त) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri RUPESH KUMAR JHA Page 11 of 11 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)