CIC: Even if the answer script in question had not been destroyed by NIOS, it could not have been provided to the appellant as the answer script sought by the appellant was personal information of third party which was exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j)
1 Nov, 2017ORDER
1. Shri G.M. Basha, the appellant, sought the answer script of Shri Komma Siva Shankar Prasad, bearing Roll No. 010049103040, for the examination year April, 2011.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) informed the appellant that as per the norms, retention period for the answer scripts was limited and therefore, it was not possible for the CPIO to provide the copy of answer script pertaining to 2011 to the appellant. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the CPIO’s response, approached the First Appellate Authority (FAA) with a request to direct the CPIO to provide the desired information to the appellant. The FAA does not appear to have adjudicated in the matter. Aggrieved, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission reiterating his request for providing the information sought by the appellant.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant submitted that till date, the CPIO did not provide the copy of answer script of Shri Komma Siva Shankar Prasad, for the examination year April 2011, to the appellant, as there was a fraud committed by Shri Prasad.
4. The respondent stated that the CPIO had already informed the appellant vide response dated 8.8.2016 that the answer scripts were retained by the respondent authority only for a limited period and since the appellant had filed the RTI application in 2016 while the examination was conducted in 2011, the information could not have been provided. Additionally, as per the rule 13.6 of the bye-laws of NIOS governing ‘examination and certification’, which was also available on the website of the respondent authority, the answer books were retained for 45 days only from the date of declaration of the result and weeded out thereafter.
5. On hearing both the parties and perusing the available records, the Commission accepts the submissions of the respondent and observes that the CPIO had appropriately responded to the appellant’s RTI application. In any case, even if the answer script in question had not been destroyed by NIOS, it could not have been provided to the appellant as the answer script sought by the appellant was personal information of third party which was exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, 2005, as well as, it being available with the respondent authority in a fiduciary capacity u/s 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011, decision dated August 9, 2011) has observed as follows:-
“24. …section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship. This would only mean that even if the relationship is fiduciary, the exemption would operate in regard to giving access to the information held in fiduciary relationship, to third parties. By that logic, the examining body, if it is in a fiduciary relationship with an examinee, will be liable to make a full disclosure of the evaluated answer-books to the examinee and at the same time, owe a duty to the examinee not to disclose the answer-books to anyone else. Therefore, section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; would operate as an exemption to prevent access to any third party.”
The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri G.M. Basha v. National Institute of Open Schooling, Noida in Appeal No. CIC/NIOPS/A/2017/182240/MP, Date of Decision: September 29, 2017