Detailed information about examination and action taken on complaints

Background

The appellant had lodged many letters/complaints regarding various matters such as discrimination by faculty, apprehension about potential misuse of signature, uncertainty in exam, harassment manipulation and instigations of other residents etc. He filed an application under RTI seeking actions taken on his letters/complaints along with various other details like copies of circulars/mark sheets for conduct of two model exams for MD candidates in PSM department, the list of examiners (external and internal examiners) for MD Community Medicine Exam in the past 5 years, copies of other complaints received from other residents, the copy(s) of complaint received regarding promotion of an employee, the deciding authority regarding MD examinations in Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), the duties and responsibilities of Dean in the conduct of MD examinations, etc.

The  Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the entire matter is sub-judice before the Honorable High Court of Judicature at Madras and the requested information regarding MD Examination is confidential information relating to examinations and cannot be provided under 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; 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; and 8(1)(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; of the RTI Act.

View of CIC

The Central Information Commission (CIC) did not accept the contentions of the respondent observing that the respondents have not given any evidence to show that there was a specific prohibition or ban by any court/tribunal on disclosure of the information sought or as to how the disclosure would constitute a contempt of court. The mere claim that a matter is sub-judice cannot be used as a reason for denying information under the RTI Act. Further as per section 19(5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request. of the RTI Act, the burden of establishing the applicability of the exemption lies on the PIO. The respondent have failed to give explanations to show how the nature of the information sought falls within the ambit of 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; 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 and was held by the public authority in a fiduciary capacity. The Commission directed the PIO to furnish the entire information noting that the information sought cannot be exempt from disclosure under sections 8(1)(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; and 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; 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.

Citation: Dr. Prasanna T. v. Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research in Decision No. CIC/AD/C/2011/901017/SG/17642

Comments

This case depicts that the lack of awareness of the provisions of the RTI Act may lead to a situation where the public authority is not able to deal with the RTI application properly or present coherent arguments before the CIC.