Central Information Commission
Ishan Mata vs All India Institute Of Medical Sciences on 29 November, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/AIIMS/A/2023/656700.
Shri Ishan Mata. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
All India Institute of Medical Sciences.
Date of Hearing : 27.11.2024
Date of Decision : 27.11.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.10.2022
PIO replied on : 16.10.2023
First Appeal filed on : 20.11.2023
First Appellate Order on : 13.12.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 30.12.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.10.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"In 2018, a then Ph.D student Mr. Rajat Prakash of the Microbiology Department was reported (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ delhi/ suicide- bid-aiims-scholar blames guide/article show/ 63472478.cms to have attempted suicide. The news report mentions that the then student alleged harassment by his supervisor as the reason, in this context kindly provide the following information and records
1.Kindly provide
(a) a copy of the complaint (against the supervisor/mentor/guide) received by the institute.
(b) a copy of the office order (or email or memorandum or any other record) vide which a committee of fact-
finding/inquiry/investigation was constituted
(c) a copy of the report of the fact finding/Investigation/Inquiry committee.
2. Kindly inform whether the accused was found to have indulged in bullying/harassment/ unprofessional conduct, whether any Page 1 penalty/punishment was imposed on the accused, and please provide the details of punitive action (if any) taken by the institute. Please provide a copy of the connected records.
3. Kindly inform (a) the date on which the committee completed the inquiry/investigation/fact-finding, and (b) whether the committee report was shared with the complainant or not, and if so then the date on which it was shared with the complainant."
The CPIO forwarded the RTI application to concerned PIO on 16.10.2023.
Aggrieved by non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO within the time limit, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.11.2023. The FAA vide order dated 13.12.2023 stated as under:-
"Reply:- As per the CPIO, this information is not available with the Department of Microbiology. The CPIO has referred the RTI to the Academic Section, AIIMS, for their response."
PIO Academic Section, AIIMS furnished reply dated 20.11.2023 as under:
Query 1(a,b,c), 2 & 3 Sought information is third party information and also not available in the compiled form as the desired information voluminous in nature. Hence, disclosure of such information is exempted under RTI Act, 2005.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Written submission dated 18.11.2024 has been received from the CPIO, Academic Section and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under :
Sought information is third party information and personal in nature. Hence, disclosure of such information in exempted under section 8 (1)(j) RTI Act. 2005.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Ms. Sushma Dhama Chandila, PIO, Academic Section AIIMS- participated in the hearing.
The Appellant stated that the relevant information sought in the instant RTI Application has been denied by the PIO under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He stated that mental health of PhD students has become a growing concern and Page 2 placed on record national and international case studies/reports highlighting high rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation in Ph.D scholars. He averred that there has been prevalence of harassment of PhD scholars by their supervisor in India and despite the devastating impact on human health and lives, academic institutions across the world have failed to put in place sound measures to address this problem. He stated that the issues raised in the instant case is of public interest and stage wise information related to the investigation related to complaint of Ph.D student Mr. Rajat Prakash of the Microbiology Department who attempted to commit suicide should be provided to him. He relied upon the decision of this Commission in CIC/ISERK/A/2023/610395,CIC/IISER/A/2023/656699,CIC/CUORJ/A/2023 /656701,CIC/IITAD/A/2023/656702, CIC/IITMD/A/2023/656706 whereby the Commission has directed for disclosure of similar information.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information sought by the Appellant relates to third party information and same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. She further stated that the copies of documents as sought by the RTI Applicant comprises of various personal information of students and faculty of their institution disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individuals involved in the matter.
Decision:
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, directs the concerned PIO to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a revised reply with respect to point No. 3 (a) and (b) of the RTI Application i.e. specifically furnish only the date on which the committee completed the inquiry/investigation/fact-finding in the matter and the whether the committee report was shared with the complainant or not, and if so the relevant date on which it was shared with the complainant, as available in their records, with regards to the instant RTI Application, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
As regards the other points of the RTI Application the Commission is of the opinion that the matter relates to attempt to suicide case of a PhD scholar which is sensitive in nature and disclosure of information as sought in the instant RTI Application related to the complaint of the student and entire investigation report and matters relating thereto would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individuals involved in the matter. Accordingly, the Commission is of the opinion that the information sought qualifies as third-party information and same is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. In view of this, Commission finds it pivotal to highlight a landmark judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein aspect of "personal information" has been explained in a highly structured manner. In this regard, ratio laid down in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Page 3 Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
"...59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
[Emphasis Supplied] Adverting to the supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case has categorized a variety of aspects that comes under the purview of "personal information" which are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Commission taking into account the facts of the above referred case deny the request of Appellant for disclosure of the rest of the information as sought in the instant RTI Application and upholds the submission of the PIO. No further action lies.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)