Inspection of documents regarding Prof. Dheeraj Sharma’s recruitment in IIM, Ahmedabad was sought - CIC: It is personal information of a third party exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act; PIO reprimanded for inapt handling of RTI Application

Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information regarding Prof. Dheeraj Sharma’s recruitment in IIM, Ahmedabad:

1. As per the minimum eligibility criteria for the selection of Associate Professor at IIM Ahmedabad in 2011, an applicant should have a PhD with a very good academic record throughout with a minimum of 6 years of teaching/industry/research experience of which at least 3 years should be at Officer/Senior Design Engineer. Provide the following information/certified copies of documents in regards to Prof. Sharma’s fulfilling the minimum eligibility criteria.

a) Details of his academic background viz. Doctoral qualification, Bachelor’s Degree, Master’s Degree, 12th standard qualification and 10th standard qualification. Provide the certified copies of mark sheets and certificates of the aforesaid academic qualifications. If any information and/or documents of the aforesaid qualifications is/are not in the record of IIM Ahmedabad that may be specifically stated (applicable for each of Doctoral qualification, Bachelor’s Degree, Master’s Degree, 12th standard qualification and 10th standard qualification).

b) Provide documentary evidences that Prof. Sharma fulfilled the experience criteria.

2. And other related information.

Grounds for Second Appeal

The CPIO did not provide any information relying on the exemption clause contained in the provisions of Sec 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 2005.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant submitted that the requisite information was given to him, however, the CPIO may be directed to allow him to inspect the relevant records as some of the information was not provided to him.

The CPIO submitted that whatever information was available with them, the same was provided to the appellant.

Observations:

From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the information sought by the appellant was regarding a third person namely Prof. Dheeraj Sharma which is purely in the nature of personal information of a third party and thus exempted from disclosure u/s 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, no relief can be provided to the appellant with regard to his prayer for inspection of the relevant documents.

The Commission also observes that the action of the CPIO in providing all the information to the appellant is grossly inapt as such information was shared that pertained to a third party namely Prof. Dheeraj Sharma. The same should have been denied under the relevant provisions of the RTI Act.

Decision:

 In view of the above observations, the Commission does not find scope for any intervention in the matter. However, the concerned CPIO is cautioned to remain careful while handling the RTI applications and ensure that such kind of mistakes do not occur in future.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna

Information Commissioner

Citation: Nirmalya Bandyopadhyay v. Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad in Decision no.: -CIC/IIMAH/A/2019/114008/02862, Date of Decision: 12/02/2020