RTI provisions necessitate adequate response and protection of third-party information.

O R D E R

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 16.09.2021 seeking information on the following one point:

1) “PDF copy of ALL AIU (Equivalence Committee) Minutes of Meeting which have held from 01/01/2020 to 16/09/2021.”

The CPIO vide online reply dated 13.10.2021, informed to the Appellant as under:

“You may please come to AIU office for inspect the Minutes. Please intimate the date atleast 2 days before the inspection.”

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.10.2021. The First Appellate Authority vide online reply dated 22.10.2021, informed as under:

Grounds for Second Appeal:

The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide information sought for.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The representative of the Appellant stated that he has not received the requisite information as sought in the instant RTI Application from the Respondent.

The Commission interjected and quizzed the representative of the Appellant to establish the larger public interest in seeking such sort of information to which the representative of the Appellant stated that he desired this piece of information as his matter regarding equivalency of Charted Accountant to PG degree was decided in the averred meeting.

The Respondent submitted that the averred minutes of meeting are not available in public domain as it contains third party personal information and that is why they have given an opportunity of inspection of the relevant records to the Appellant vide letter dated 13.10.2021 and 22.10.2021. He further added that the averred matter is still inconclusive.

At the instance of the Commission whether the relevant portion of the minutes of meeting pertaining to the Appellant’s matter can be given after invoking the provisions of Severability under Section 10 of the RTI Act, the Respondent replied in affirmative.

A written submission has been received by the Commission from Smt. Sreedevi S. Nair, PIO, Association of Indian Universities, New Delhi, vide letter dated 25.11.2022, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:

Decision:

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that though a timely reply qua the instant RTI Application has been given by the Respondent but the Appellant has expressed his dissatisfaction over the same and as agreed by the Respondent during the hearing, the Commission deems it fit to direct the Respondent to provide a revised reply qua the instant RTI Application to the Appellant, in the light of the submission made during the hearing, with a copy marked to the Commission, within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order.

The Respondent is further directed that while complying with the directions of the Commission, all the personal information/identifying particulars of any third parties should be adequately redacted/blackened out. The Commission further directs the Respondent that no information shall be disclosed to the Appellant which is exempted from disclosure under the provisions of Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act.

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

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