Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2577

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, IC
Mridula Kumari – Appellant
Versus
PIO, O/o Dy. Director of Education – Respondent
CIC/DIRED/A/2024/106025

Advocates:
For the Appellant: Mridula Kumari
For the Respondent: Ms. Usha Dhariwal, Dr. Kapil Kumar Gupta

The RTI Act upholds the right to access information while balancing it against personal data privacy, mandating adequate responses from authorities.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(j) - RTI application filed by appellant concerning EWS admissions - CPIO initially provided incomplete response regarding student admissions - FAA directed complete information provision awarded by the commission - Personal information of third parties not disclosed. (Paras 7, 9, 11)

(B) Appellate Authority's Role - The Appeal process requires complete information furnished to ensure transparency and accountability in educational admissions, emphasizing the limits of information disclosures under RTI Act regarding personal data privacy. (Paras 9, 11)

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought details regarding students admitted under EWS quota for specified sessions, highlighting concerns about inadmissible entries. The respondent claimed limited information was available under existing regulations.

Findings of Court:
Respondent is directed to furnish necessary updated statistical data regarding point No. 1 of the appeal, underscoring the incomplete initial response while maintaining privacy on personal data.

Issues: The main questions were determining the adequacy of information supplied under RTI requests and the balance between transparency and privacy rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The commission concluded the respondent's provided information was insufficient and limited the disclosure of personal data under the RTI Act. Revised response mandated for compliance indicating the need for transparency concerning educational quota admissions while safeguarding personal information.

Result: Appeal partially allowed.

Table of Content
1. respondent's duty under rti. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. rti application overview and procedural dealings. (Para 3)
3. background of the rti request. (Para 5 , 7)
4. commission's directive for adequate information. (Para 6 , 9)
5. appellant asserts misconduct in admissions under the ews quota. (Para 8)
6. decision emphasizing the necessary compliance in providing complete information. (Para 10)
7. decision to deny personal information. (Para 11)

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:24)ी, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/DIRED/A/2024/106025 Mridula Kumari .….अपीलकता(cid:18)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम PIO, O/o Dy. Director of Education, Zone - 18, Distt. West - B, G - Block, Vikaspuri, New Delhi – 110018 ….(cid:29)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 07.07.2025 Date of Decision : 08.07.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 30.09.2023 CPIO replied on : 01.11.2023 First appeal filed on : 14.11.2023 First Appellate Authority’s order : 14.12.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 12.01.2024 Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 30.09.2023 seeking the following information:

“I (Mridula Kumari) W/o Late S.K. Malhotra residence of W2-4 Second Floor Chaukhani extension, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018 wish to seek information Kindly arrange to provide as under:

1. Name of student of 10^th Class for session 2016-17, 201-18 & 2020-21 and student of 12^th class for session 2022-23 who were availed facility under EWS quotas in captioned ----

2. Name of parents/ Guardians of student of 10^th class for session 2016- 17, 2017-18 & 2020-21 and student of 12^th class for session 2022-23 who were enrolled under EWS quota in above mentioned school.

3.certificate submitted by students 10^th Class for session 2016-17, 201-18 & 2020-21 and student of 12^th class for session 2022-23 who were enrolled under EWS quota in above mentioned school.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 01.11.2023 stating as under:

“1.-2. Private schools are bound to supply limited information under DSEAR. 1973 as per 180 return as they are not public authority as per section 2(f) of RTI act 2005 as the information sought by the applicant is not supplied under 180 return. Therefore, the said information is not available.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.11.2023.

The FAA vide its order dated 14.12.2023, held as under.

“After going through the RTI appeal, it is seen that appellant has not received complete information at the time of filing appeal. The DDE/PIO (Zone-18) is hereby directed to provide information as available with the zonal office to the appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act 2005 within 10 days of receipt of this order and copy of the same to be provided to office of RDE for information.”

4. In compliance of FAA’s the PIO furnished a revised reply dated

20.12.2023 to the appellant as under:

S.No.	Reply
1.	Details of Class X students studied under EWS Category in Session 206-17, 2017-2018 & 2020-21	Details of Class X students studied under EWS Category in Session 2022-23
	2016-17 02 Students 2017-18 06 Students	2022-23 10 Students

	2020-21 10 Students
2-3.	Private schools are bound to supply limited information under DSEAR, 1973 as per 180 return as they are not public authority as per section 2(h) of RTI act 2005 as the information sought by the applicant is not supplied under 180 return. Therefore, the said information is not available.

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

6. A written submission dated 26.06.2025 filed by the Respondent giving the chain of events and correspondences pertaining to instant matter is taken on record.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: She, along with Shri Anil Kumar present in pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2577

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONVinod Kumar Tiwari, ICMridula Kumari – AppellantVersusPIO, O/o Dy. Director of Education – RespondentCIC/DIRED/A/2024/106025

The RTI Act upholds the right to access information while balancing it against personal data privacy, mandating adequate responses from authorities.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, IC
Mridula Kumari – Appellant
Versus
PIO, O/o Dy. Director of Education – Respondent
CIC/DIRED/A/2024/106025