के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग१,मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067 ि(cid:554)तीय अपील संূा / Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/612352 Saswat Sourav Padhy … अपीलकता१/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO:

University Grants Commission, New Delhi …ঋितवादीगण/Respondent Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.01.2024 seeking information as under:

“XIM University, Bhubaneswar erstwhile (Xavier University Bhubaneswar) used to have a 2 years Global MBA Programme. Total 4 batches have passed with Global MBA degree with 1st batch passing on 2016 and the last batch passing on 2019.The Global MBA Programme had one year curriculum in Abroad (Partner Universities of XIMB) and another year in XIMB. This was a Dual degree program back then i.e. 1 Foreign Masters Degree and 2 Years MBA Global Degree of XIMB. I want to know if the UGC had approved and allowed XIM university erstwhile (Xavier University Bhubaneswar) to issue Global MBA degree of XIM University during 2014 to 2019. The Global MBA Programme was stopped from 2019. However, 4 Batches comprising of approx 40 students have passed with Global MBA degree. Kindly let me know if that degree was permissible under UGC guideline back then during 2014 to 2019 and Had it been approved by UGC?”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 02.02.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“UGC does not approve the course of the University. However, a statutory university can award degree specified under Section 22 of UGC Act.1956, with due approval of its competent councils and statutory councils, wherever required.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.02.2024. The FAA vide order dated 01.03.2024 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 19.03.2024.

5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Lokesh Kumar Jangra, US & CPIO attended the hearing in person.

6. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and submitted that vide their written submissions dated 25.04.2025, additional clarification has also been stated to facilitate the Appellant.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the Appellant has not sought for any information as envisaged under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, yet, in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act, the CPIO has facilitated the Appellant with relevant clarification vide their original reply as well as at this stage vide their written submissions.

For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.

In this regard, the Appellant’s attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:

“35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing………A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required t