Information about KVS application form was denied u/s 8(1)(j) - Applicant claimed to have sought his own son’s information - PIO: Mother of the child had denied to disclose the personal information - CIC: U/s 11, ask the local guardian appointed by Court

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.09.2022 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Copy of the KVS application form for the admission of Vedansh Biswal.

(ii) Copy of all the documents submitted with the above application.

(iii) Who submitted the admission form and when. Copy of the diary entry for receiving the application.

(iv) Name of the person who furnished the admission related administration process from school and from the applicant (Vedansh Biswal).

(v) Who paid the fees from where/which bank. Is this done online or offline payment?

(vi) Who is attending the parent-teachers meeting. If parents are not attending then what is the reason as per school records.

(vii) Does KVS allow any other than parents to attend the PT meetings?

(viii) Emergency contact details of Vedansh Biswal as per school records.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.10.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“Information sought by the applicant pertains to personal information. The PIO cannot provide personal information as per 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. of RTI Act 2005.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.10.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 16.11.2022 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 09.01.2023

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Pinam, Administrative Officer, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the information was not provided. He objected against the invocation of Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act by the CPIO in the matter and argued that he did not agree that the information sought could be denied on such grounds as he had sought his own son’s information.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a response to the RTI application in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 20.10.2022. She stated that the information sought constituted personal information of third-party. She further stated that Ms. Jyoti (mother of the Son) had denied to disclose the personal information of her son to the appellant and also stated that local guardian in case of her son would be Dr. Anil Pratihary and Mrs. Rashmibala Pratihary. Accordingly, they claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. In response, the appellant stated that as father he was entitled to know the education details pertaining to his son.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent had denied the information under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. During the hearing, the appellant submitted that as a father of his child he had a right to know education details of his child.

Therefore, the Commission directs the respondent to again invoke section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 and write a letter to the current local guardian appointed by the Hon’ble court and furnish a reply based on the reply provided by the Guardian to the Appellant within 30 days from the date of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Bharat Biswal v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, CIC/KVSAN/A/2023/101487; Date of Decision: 29.04.2024