SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2709

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Anandi Ramalingam, IC
Shubham Kumar – Appellant
Versus
National Institute of Technology Patna – Respondent
Complaint No. CIC/NITPA/C/2024/601965



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Ashit Narayan

The RTI Act protects personal information, denying disclosure of student attendance records under Section 8(1)(j) due to privacy concerns.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(j) - In this case, the complainant sought information regarding attendance records and CCTV footage from the National Institute of Technology, which was denied citing third-party information privacy under the RTI Act. The Commission noted the lack of justification for delay in response, necessitating a written explanation from the CPIO within 20 days. (Paras 6 and 7)

(B) Judicial Precedent - Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal - Establishes that personal records fall under the category of information protectable from unwarranted invasion of privacy. (Paragraph 6)

Table of Content
1. rti application details and response insufficient. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. cpio's response lacks justification for delay. (Para 5)
3. personal information privacy limits disclosure under rti. (Para 6)
4. final order for written explanation from cpio. (Para 7)

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.06.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) According to Registration Rule : As Per Ref 1126/Acad/2022-23 , Registration will be valid and saved in the portal only for those students who will successfully save papers and make the fee payment, failing which it will not be valid i.e. student, will not be able to appear in examination and no request will be entertained at a later stage.

Legal & Officially Attendance never can be considerable without fee payment within deadline given in 1126/Acad/2022-23.

Subsequent, Hod or Concerned Authority could not beyond the law and guidelines they should adhere with the published guidelines of registration, which they misuses in the case of more than 167 and 74 students.

And Attendance is Secondary Registration is Primary Eligibility.

If any autonomous institute misuse and violate own rules then You must should also accept my late registration and fee payment.

My Attendance norms can be exempted or neglected as earlier in case of Medical Leave, Internship and Unexpected Circumstances.

Also, I have details of more than 30-40% student who have not 75% attendance or 6 students also found inside Jail of Mohania Kaimur during Jan-Jun 2023 Semester. NIT Patna official also uploaded false reply to dispose my complaint DSEHE/E/2023/0003177 arbitrarily. I am asking NIT Patna to file a police complaint and share a copy with me, against Either Dean Academic or MP Singh Nodal Officer for forged Academic Registration Notice Ref 1126/Acad/2022-23 because there are not mentioned last date of payment was 16/05/2023 which nodal officer replied if they are true then how Notice are Contradictory.

I am requesting NIT Patna to disclose and share details of all attendance records of Jan-June 2023 semester for all UG PG PhD students me all the attendance of students UG/PG/PhD.

Also, I want CCTV footage to last 1 month of Dean Student Welfare Cabin because I knew he never came on time on administrative block, why attendance norms and strictness not governed to all employee of NIT Patna.

2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. The FAA’s order, if any, is not on record of the Commission.

3. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 13.01.2024.

4. The Complainant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Ashit Narayan, Dy. Registrar, attended the hearing through video conference.

5. When queried by the Commission regarding a response furnished to the RTI application, the respondent submitted that the appellant had sought CCTV footage of Dean student Welfare cabin and attendance records of all students. It was stated that a response to the RTI application had been furnished to the Complainant vide their letter dated

21.06.2025 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“The attendance of all students pertains to third party information and doesn't affect the interest of large public hence cant be provided. Further CCTV is not installed inside the cabin of Dean Student Welfare.”

On being queried regarding a late reply, no proper justification had been submitted by Mr. Ashit Narayan, Dy. Registrar.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 21.06.2025. However, the relevant exemption have not been cited. The Commission notes that the appellant has sought for the attendance record of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top