Alleging an unethical practices of taking money for passing PG clinical exam candidates, appellant sought to know the “number of times” a third party has been invited as an examiner - CIC: Being a third party service matter, information exempt u/s 8(1)(j)

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.10.2022 seeking information as under:

“Subject Matter of RTI Application: As reported from various sources, it is alleged that there is an unwarranted and unethical practices of taking money for passing the candidates in PG clinical exams by Dr C BALASUBRAMANIAN MS (ENT), Professor cum HOD, Dept of ENT, Thanjavur Medical College and Hospital a clear violation of P.G. Medical Education Regulations, 2000.Corruptionl malpractices by a public servant is against public interest and there are no exemptions as larger public interest is involved in seeking information vide this RTI Application:

Please provide information regarding the number of times Dr C Balasubramanian MS (ENT), Professor cum HOD, Dept of ENT, Thanjavur Medical College and Hospital was invited for conducting MS / DNB in Otorhinolaryngology postgraduate exams in all of the medical colleges affiliated under Pondicherry University during the academic year 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22.”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.10.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“The particulars as requested by the Applicant is regarding with conduct of the Examination which contains details of examiners are highly confidential and hence it cannot be disclosed to the RTI Applicant under Section 8(1)(e), (g) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and no larger public interest is established.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 15.12.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 06.01.2023.

5. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Devendra Singh, Asst. Registrar & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the denial of the information by the CPIO citing these many exemptions when he has only sought to know the number of times the averred examiner was invited for conducting the examinations over these years and not any intrinsic detail of the examination or the examiner.

7. The Respondent submitted that irrespective of the fact that the Appellant has only sought for number of times the examiner was invited, the same cannot be provided in view of Section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; of the RTI Act, particularly in the backdrop of the Appellant’s allegation claiming several malpractices on the part of the averred third party in the preface to the RTI query.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that concededly, even though it is not disputed that the Appellant has only sought to know the “number of times” a third party has been invited as an examiner, but being a service matter of that third party, the exemption of the information under Section 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. 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 cannot be faulted. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of “personal information”  envisaged under Section 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. 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 RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:

“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…”

Further, the claim of the CPIO that Section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; of the RTI Act is also applicable in the matter in the backdrop of the allegations levelled by the Appellant is deemed as appropriate.

9. Having observed as above, no relief is warranted in the matter.

10. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Er Sureshkumar Jeyakumar v. Pondicherry University, CIC/PONDU/A/2023/101007; Date of Decision: 29.04.2024