CIC: Respondent has blatantly erred in not providing any reply; Respondent has not even submitted any written submission to the CIC even 10 days after receiving the hearing notice; As information exempt u/s 8(1)(j), no further scope for invention

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 07.02.2020 seeking information as under:

“Information sought from Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar College, a fully Delhi Government-funded College on the following:

1. Number and names of teachers at this College working on an Adhoc basis who did not do their mandatory invigilation duties during Nov/December 2019 Exams.

2. The cognizance and action if any, taken by the College.”

Having not received any information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.03.2020, which has not been adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority as per available records.

Grounds for Second Appeal:

The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of non-receipt of information from the Respondent. The Appellant requested the Commission to pass appropriate order/s.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The Appellant stated that the intent for seeking the averred information is because due to certain irregularities in Respondent public authority such as initiating ad-hoc appointments and inter alia. He further stated that being a whistleblower, he wants to unearth the irregularities and bring balance in the system.

The Respondent submitted that he has taken charge as PIO on 27.12.2021. He further submitted that as on the date of the RTI Application / First Appeal, riots/ protests were on the go both on and off the campus and consequently pandemic also broke-in globally, hence, no reply could be provided to the Appellant. He assured that efforts will be initiated now to provide information to the Appellant.

Decision:

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the Respondent has blatantly erred in not providing any reply to the Appellant. In addition, the Respondent has not even submitted any written submission to the Commission even after a lapse of 10 days from the date of receiving the hearing notice. The Commission expresses severe displeasure against the then CPIO for contravening the provisions of the RTI Act. He/she is sternly warned to be careful in future and shall ensure that timely replies/communications should be provided in cases pertaining to the RTI Act.

Be that as it may, the Commission also observes that the Appellant has sought information pertaining to personal information of third party, which is exempt from disclosure 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, the Commission relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Dr. R S Gupta vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. in LPA no. 207/2020 dated 31.08.2020, wherein the Hon’ble High Court held as under:

“10. The attendance record is part of service record which is a matter between the employee and the employer and ordinarily these aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information". The disclosure of this information ex-facie has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and pertinently, the appellant is not able to explain or show any nexus between the personal information sought and the public interest involved, for seeking its disclosure. Thus, in our view, in absence of even a remote connection with any larger public interest, disclosure of information would be exempted as the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. Petitioner has thus failed to establish that the information sought for is for any public interest, much less 'larger public interest'.”

In view of the above, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the information sought by the Appellant pertains to personal information of third party, which is exempt from disclosure 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. Hence, the Commission finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter.

With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of.

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

The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.

Amita Pandove
Information Commissioner

Citation: Sanjeev Kumar v. Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar College, University of Delhi in Second Appeal No. CIC/BRACO/A/2020/669710/MOHRD, Date: 30.12.2021