Central Information Commission
Dr Madhav Kulkarni vs International Institute Of Population ... on 30 March, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/IIPOS/A/2025/624892
Dr.Madhav Kulkarni .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
M/o Health & FW,Department
of Health & FW Statistics
Division IRCS Building, 3rd
Floor, Room No 306, New
Delhi 110001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27.03.2026
Date of Decision : 27.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Jaya Varma Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.03.2025
CPIO replied on : 11.04.2025
First appeal filed on : 30.04.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 13.05.2025
2nd Appeal dated : 30.05.2025
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.03.2025(offline) seeking the following information:
"1. Copies of Travelling Allowance (T.A.) bills of all officers of IIPS and MoHFW related to IIPS work since 1st August 2024.CIC/IIPOS/A/2025/624892 Page 1 of 4
2. Details of meetings and minutes of all meetings held at MoHFW with IIPS officials, including:
Details of visits by IIPS officials to MoHFW since 1st Aug. 2024. The nature of work carried out by IIPS officials during these visits.
3. Copies of notings, eOffice notes, emails, and offline communications related to Letter No. C-11015/06/2023-Stats(IIPS)/8229132, dated 22nd August 2024, including:
Copies of meetings held.
Committee investigation reports submitted by the committee.
4. The details of expenditure incurred with copy of approval for logistic support given to MoHFW officials since 2018 like vehicle booking expenditure, hotel booking expenditure and food etc."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 11.04.2025 stating as under:
Point no.1: The information sought in this part of the RTI Application is covered under the exemptions falling under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, in pursuance with the decision (copy of order attached) of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Civil Writ Petition No. 4930 of 2011) that the copies of TA bills etc. would clearly be in the nature of personal information in respect of the private respondents and not relatable to the discharge of their duties in official capacity, and therefore cannot be disclosed.
Point no.2: The minutes of the meetings held on 30.09.2024, 15.10.2024, 11.11.2024, 09.12.2024, 06.01.2025 and 04.02.2025 at DoH&FW with IIPS officials are attached herewith and the minutes of 114th EC may be found at the below https://www.iipsindia.ac.in/sites/default/files/114 ECMinutes.pdf link:
This part of the RTI Application has also been transferred to the CPIO of IIPS, Mumbai, under Sub-Section (3) of Section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005, to provide the reply directly to the Applicant, based on the information available. The applicant may need to follow up directly with the concerned CPIO. Point no.3: The matters referred to in the letter mentioned in this part of the RTI Application are still under process and no final decision/conclusion has been arrived at. Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 allows public authorities to withhold such information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
Further, the Central Information Commission (CIC) in one of its decisions (copy enclosed) has held that information about the complaints made against an officer of the Government and any possible action the authorities might have taken on those complaints, qualifies as personal information within the CIC/IIPOS/A/2025/624892 Page 2 of 4 meaning of provision of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Central Information Commission while deciding the said case has cited the decision of Supreme Court of India in the matter of Girish R. Deshpande vs. CIC and others (SLP (C) no. 27734/2012) in which it was held as under:- "The performance of an employee/Officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression 'personal information', the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual." The Supreme Court further held that such information could be disclosed only if it would serve a larger public interest.
In view of the above, the information sought in this part of the RTI application is covered under the exemptions falling under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, and therefore cannot be disclosed.
Point no.4: From the RTI request, it is not clear in what context the expenditure on logistic arrangements and the copy of the approval have been sought. If the request pertains to the official tours of DoH&FW Government officials, the reimbursement of expenses incurred during such tours is made to the Government officials in accordance with the extant rules. The RTI Application has also been transferred to the CPIO of Cash - I&II, DoH&FW, under Sub-Section (3) of Section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005, to provide the reply directly to the Applicant, based on the information available. The applicant may need to follow up directly with the concerned CPIO."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.04.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 13.05.2025, held as under:
"I have carefully examined the application, the reply given by the CPIO, Statistics Division in respect of the RTI Application and the appeal made by the Appellant in this regard.
It is to state that it seems the CPIO, Statistics Division, MoHFW has provided you the information as permitted under RTI Act.
Hence the appeal is accordingly disposed off."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-CIC/IIPOS/A/2025/624892 Page 3 of 4
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Shri Achu Sreekumar, CPIO-cum-DD, Shri Shivanand Thakur, Senior A.O. and Ms. Manjiri Rane, PIO-cum-Assistant Registrar, attended the hearing through VC.
5. The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
6. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant in the instant RTI Application is seeking information of ongoing investigation and the same also contains personal information of third party. Therefore, disclosure of such information is exempted under Section 8 (1) (h) & (j) of the RTI Act. However, their office has provided consolidated information of expenditure to the Appellant.
7. A written submission has been received from Shri Achu Sreekumar, CPIO-
cum-DD, vide letter dated 19.03.2026, a copy of which has been sent to the Appellant and the same has been taken on record.
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that a suitable reply in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 11.04.2025 and the Commission upholds the same. No further action lies in the instant case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Jaya Varma Sinha (जया वमा िस ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Ashutosh Vasistha) Dy. Registrar 011- 26107042 CIC/IIPOS/A/2025/624892 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)