Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2309

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, J
Hari C V – Appellant
Versus
CPIO: Indian Institute of Information Technology (IIIT), Kottayam, Kerala – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/IIIKY/A/2024/608161 + CIC/IIIKY/A/2024/606800 + CIC/IIIKY/A/2024/615874

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Gens George Elavinamannil
For the Respondents: Malini, Binu

The Court ruled that while personal data of third-party candidates cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the Appellant is entitled to access his own evaluation marks.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(j) - Disclosure of personal information of candidates seeking Assistant Professor positions at an academic institute - CPIO denied information citing privacy rights; Appellant contested on grounds of public interest and transparency - Court upheld CPIO's stance on third-party information but mandated disclosure of Appellant's own marks. (Paras 7-14)

(B) Public Interest - Concept explained through judicial precedent; denial of third-party information deemed appropriate where no significant public interest established - Individual rights and privacy acknowledged within the context of RTI requests. (Paras 9-10)

Facts of the case:
The Appellant filed multiple RTI applications seeking information about the educational qualifications, work experience, and marks of candidates selected for academic roles, to which responses were insufficient or denied by the CPIO citing personal information exemptions under RTI Act. The Appellant subsequently appealed to the Commission.

Findings of Court:
The Court determined that while personal information could not be disclosed for third-party candidates, the Appellant's own requested information warranted access after questioning CPIO’s methods of restriction regarding one’s own exam performance.

Issues: The issues primarily addressed whether the Appellant was entitled to personal information about third-party candidates that could infringe privacy rights and what extent of their own information could be disclosed without privacy concerns.

Ratio Decidendi: The Commission recognized the right to privacy while balancing it with the right to information, determining that only the Appellant's information on marks required disclosure, aligning with previous judicial interpretations on public interest and individual privacy as outlined in historical case law. (Paras 7 -14)

Result: The Commission directed the CPIO to provide the Appellant with his own marks and related information masked for third-party identifiers.

ORDER

Second Appeal No. CIC/IIIKY/A/2024/608161

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.11.2023 seeking information on the following points:

1. “Provide the educational qualifications of all the candidates in the rank list (which includes the position of all the candidates after the interview) of the selection of Assistant Professor Gr. I and Grade II to the Department of ECE as per the Institute Rolling Advertisement No. IIITK/01/12/2023/47 dated 31.01.2023. (Associate Professor, Asst. Professor Gr. I & Gr. II - CSE/IT/ECE).

2. Provide the previous working experiences (which includes the Name and address of the previous institute(s) and number of years of service) of all the candidates in the rank list (which includes the position of all the candidates after the interview) of the selection of Assistant Professor Gr. I and Grade II to the Department of ECE as per the Institute Rolling Advertisement No. IIITK/01/12/2023/47 dated 31.01.2023. (Associate Professor, Asst. Professor Gr. 1 & Gr. II-CSE/IT/ECE).

3. Is there any candidates in the rank list (which includes the position of all the candidates after the interview) who have worked in IIIT Kottayam previously of the selection of Assistant Professor Gr. I and Grade II to the Department of ECE as per the Institute Rolling Advertisement No. IIITK/01/12/2023/47 dated 31.01.2023. (Associate Professor, Asst. Professor Gr. I & Gr. II - CSE/IT/ECE).

4. Provide the application numbers of the candidates in the rank list (which includes the position of all the candidates after the interview) who have worked in IIIT Kottayam previously of the selection of Assistant Professor Gr. I and Grade II to the Department of ECE as per the Institute Rolling Advertisement No. IIITK/01/12/2023/47 dated 31.01.2023. (Associate Professor, Asst. Professor Gr. I & Gr. II - CSE/IT/ECE).

5. Provide the name and address of the candidates in the rank list (which includes the position of all the candidates after the interview) who have worked in IIIT Kottayam previously of the selection of Assistant Professor Gr. I and Grade II to the Department of ECE as per the Institute Rolling Advertisement No. IIITK/01/12/2023/47 dated 31.01.2023. (Associate Professor, Asst. Professor Gr. I & Gr. II - CSE/IT/ECE).”

1.1. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any reply to the RTI Application, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.12.2023. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.

1.2. Subsequently, the CPIO replied vide letter dated 09.02.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

1. “Personal information cannot be shared as per section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005 .

2. Same as 1 above.

3. Same as 1 above.

4. Same as 1 above.

5. The provisional list of selected candidates were already published in the institute website. Name and address can’t be shared as personal information cannot be shared as per section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005 .”

1.3. Aggrieved with the non -receipt of the desired information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 17.02.2024.

Second Appeal No. CIC/IIIKY/A/2024/606800

2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.11.2023 seeking information on the following points:

1. “Provide the separate marks scored by all candidates in the test and interview during the selection of Assistant Professor Gr. I and Grade II to the Department of ECE as per the Institute Rolling Advertisement No. IIITK/01/12/2023/47 dated 31.01.2023. (Associate Professor, Asst. Professor Gr. I & Gr. II-CSE/IT/ECE).

2. Provide the rank list (which includes the position of all the candidates after the interview) of the selection of Assistant Professor Gr. I and Grade II to the Department of ECE as per the Institute Rolling Advertisement No. IIITK/01/12/2023/47 dated 31.01.2023. (Associate Professor, Asst. Professor Gr. 1 & Gr. II-CSE/IT/ECE).

3. Provide the Name and Application number of all the candidates in the rank list (which includes the position of all the candidates after the interview) of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2309

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONANANDI RAMALINGAM, JHari C V – AppellantVersusCPIO: Indian Institute of Information Technology (IIIT), Kottayam, Kerala – RespondentSecond Appeal No. CIC/IIIKY/A/2024/608161 + CIC/IIIKY/A/2024/606800 + CIC/IIIKY/A/2024/615874

The Court ruled that while personal data of third-party candidates cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the Appellant is entitled to access his own evaluation marks.

Cases Referred (2)

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, J
Hari C V – Appellant
Versus
CPIO: Indian Institute of Information Technology (IIIT), Kottayam, Kerala – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/IIIKY/A/2024/608161 + CIC/IIIKY/A/2024/606800 + CIC/IIIKY/A/2024/615874