The Right to Information Act allows withholding information related to third parties, balancing transparency and confidentiality in public appointments.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(j) - Complaints regarding denial of information related to third-party details in the context of appointment processes - The Complainant sought information on the evaluation of candidates for a professorship, which was denied on grounds of third-party confidentiality. The Commission found that the information had been provided adequately and no malafide intention was established. (Paras 1.7, 2.7)

(B) Transparency in Public Appointments - The court emphasized the need for transparency in public appointments while balancing the rights of third parties. The Commission ruled that the information sought was non-specific and related to third-party details, thus justifying the denial. (Paras 1.6, 2.6)

Facts of the case:
The Complainant filed RTI applications seeking information about the appointment of a professor, which were denied by the CPIO citing third-party information. The Complainant alleged that the responses were incomplete and misleading.

Findings of Court:
The Commission concluded that the information had been adequately provided and no malafide intention was established in denying further details.

Issues: The main issues were whether the information was denied with malafide intention and the applicability of third-party confidentiality under the RTI Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the information related to third-party details could be withheld under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, and no further intervention was warranted as the information had been sufficiently provided.

Result: Complaints closed.

ORDER

Date of Complaint 1 643096 02.05.2023 31.05.2023 09.07.2023 07.08.2023 05.09.2023 2 130326 05.05.2023 31.05.2023 14.06.2023 05.07.2023 14.07.2023 The instant set of Complaints have been clubbed for decision as these relate to the same subject matter.

Date of Hearing: 15.07.2024 Date of Decision: 23.07.2024 CORAM:

Hon’ble Commissioner SMT. ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R Complaint No. CIC/CUVRH/C/2023/643096 1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Pursuant to the Right to Information Act, 2005, I am requesting a copy of the scrutiny committee minutes and relevant documents related to the evaluation of all candidates, including Dr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, for the post of professor in the Department of Political Science.

1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 31.05.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“Desired information related to third party, hence cannot be provided.”

1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 09.07.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 07.08.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO 1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 05.09.2023.

1.4. The Complainant remained present through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

1.5. The Complainant inter alia submitted that there was some deliberation in the selection and appointment process for the post of professor in the Department of Political Science, due to which he had sought information regarding the copy of the scrutiny committee minutes and relevant documents related to the evaluation of all candidates, but the information was wrongly rejected by the Respondent authority on the pretext of being a third party information.

1.6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the minutes of meeting of the scrutiny committee are available on the website without the names of the members of the scrutiny committee and the same can be accessed by the complainant. But the information as sought by the Complainant in the RTI Application cannot be furnished in that particular format as it contains the details of the third-party. In addition, he claimed that the information sought by the Complainant regarding the relevant documents related to the evaluation of all candidates is non-specific in nature. 1.7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the instant matter is a Complaint under the RTI Act where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given and it is only required to be ascertained if the information has been denied with a malafide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. On the perusal of the documents on record the Commission observes that the information has already been provided to the Complainant hence no malafide intention is established and no further intervention is required in the matter. Accordingly, the complaint is closed. Complaint No. CIC/CUVRH/C/2023/130326 2. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 05.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) When was Dr. Rajeev Kumar Singh appointed as a Professor in the Department of Political Science? Provide soft copy of his appointment letter.

(ii) What is the basis for considering Dr. Rajeev Kumar Singh's experience as a guest faculty member (proof attached) at Central University of Jharkhand as equivalent to teaching experience as an assistant professor, and how is this being taken into account for his appointment as a professor at Central University of Haryana?

Provide supporting document.

(iii) Kindly provide the complete teaching experience of Dr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, along with the supporting documents for each

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2837

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONDr. PAWAN KUMAR – AppellantVersusCENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF HARYANA – RespondentCIC/CUVRH/C/2023/130326

The Right to Information Act allows withholding information related to third parties, balancing transparency and confidentiality in public appointments.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Dr. PAWAN KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF HARYANA – Respondent
CIC/CUVRH/C/2023/130326