CIC: Details of M.Tech. sponsored students and their sponsoring organization pertains to personal information - CIC: PIO has erred in giving the details of said students without seeking consent u/s 11 of RTI Act; PIO advised to exercise due diligence

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 11.09.2019 seeking the information as follows;

1. Names of sponsored students and their sponsoring organisations year wise from 1983 to 2019 who completed their M.Tech from Dept of Computer Science and Engineering of IIT Kgp.

The CPIO replied to the appellant on 03.10.2019 stating as follows:-

“The partial data as available in IIT Kharagpur electronic database i.e names of the sponsored students completed their M.Tech in Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering year wise from the year 2010 and their sponsoring organization from the year 2015 is furnished in Annexure I. The remaining data is not available at Academic Section.”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.11.2019. FAA’s order dated 10.12.2019 stated as follows:-

“………..Joint Registrar (Academic) & APIO is requested to revisit the RTI application of the appellant and to provide additional information, if any, to the appellant directly latest by 16.12.2019 with a copy to Public information Officer of the Institute for record.”

In compliance of the FAA’s order, the CPIO informed the appellant on 16.12.2019 as under:- “……all the available records were explored and no additional information is available. The data which is already furnished is from the year 2010 to 2019. It is to be noted that in the year 2018 and 2019, no sponsored students were awarded M.Tech degree in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering.”

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of incomplete information received from the CPIO.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: Animesh Kumar Naskar, Assistant Registrar & CPIO along with Achintya Kumar Mandal, Joint Registrar & APIO present through audioconference.

The Commission remarked at the outset that the Appellant vide letter dated Nil has sought exemption from hearing owing to his medical exigencies and requested the Commission to decide the case on merits. The CPIO submitted that reply along with relevant inputs has already been provided to the Appellant as is evinced from the letters dated 03.10.2019, 10.12.2019 and 16.12.2019.

Decision:

The Commission based upon a perusal of facts on record observes that the details of M.Tech. sponsored students and their sponsoring organization as sought for by the Appellant pertains to personal information of third parties disclosure of which stands exempted 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. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 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 2010wherein 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…”

However, ignoring this aspect the CPIO has erred in giving the details of said students through his first reply without seeking consent of such students under Section 11 of RTI Act. In this regard the CPIO is advised to exercise due diligence and follow due process of law as per the RTI Act while divulging the third party’s personal information to the applicants.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani

Information Commissioner

Citation: Har Sukhdeep Singh v. Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur in File No: CIC/IITKH/A/2020/106698; Date of Decision: 21/09/2021