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

2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3062

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Anandi Ramalingam, IC
Dharmender – Appellant
Versus
Central Board Of Secondary Education – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/CBSED/A/2024/648690



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Omprakash Pipar

Confidential information under the RTI Act cannot be disclosed without consent; third-party rights are protected.

Headnote:The Right to Information Act, 2005 was examined in the context of a request for educational records. The appellant sought access to documents regarding a third-party's educational qualifications. The CPIO and FAA provided rationale for denial referencing Section 8(1)(j) on confidential third-party information. The Commission upheld this reasoning, noting the absence of the appellant at the hearing and affirming no basis for further intervention. The appeal was accordingly disposed of.

Table of Content
1. requests for information on third parties under rti must adhere to confidentiality. (Para 1 , 2)
2. the faa highlighted the lack of third-party consent for information release. (Para 3)
3. the commission's decisions hinged on existing rti provisions and absence of appellant. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. final decision affirmed cpio's adherence to rti guidelines for information denial. (Para 7)

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1. यह की ঋाथ५ की सगी बहन Sajjan Kaur D/O Anup Singh ने वष१ 1998-99 म७ Shiva Shiksha Sadan School (Affiliation ID - 530189), देव नगर सोनीपत जो आपके CBSE Board से Affiliated है से 10th की क঴ा पास की थी िजसका Roll No.

2109923 तथा Registration no. C/99/4216/896721/60 है।

2. यह की ঋाथ५ के िपता की आक्(cid:733)क मृ(cid:529)ु िदनांक 13.03.2017 को ॽई थी उसके बाद मुकेश (वादी) ने ঋाथ५ व अ(cid:586) के ऊपर परी-(cid:600)ान करके एक झठू ा व फज५ दीवानी दावा (Civil Suit) बा अनुमान Mukesh Vs. Dharmender आिद, बहादुरगढ़ Civil Court म७ दायर कर िदया जो अभी प७िडंग (िवचाराधीन) है िजसमे मुकेश (वादी) ने ঋायो ंकी सगी बहन Sajjan Kaur को बहकाकर व उसे अपने साथ साज-बाज करके दीवानी दावे ( para no. 8 ) म७ उसकी माता का नाम Bimla िदखाया गया है जबिक Sajjan kaur असल म७ Kamlesh की पुআी है और Kamlesh ही Sajjan Kaur की माता है।

(दीवानी दावा िजसमे para no. 8 म७ Sajjan kaur की माता का नाम Bimla िदखाया गया है की छायाঋित साथ संलगन है) ……

अतः ঋाथ५ आप जनाब से ঋाथ१ना करता है िक (ঋाथ५ की सगी बहन) Sajjan kaur D/O Anup Singh िजसका Roll No. 2109923 तथा Registration No. C/99/4216/896721/60 है की 10th की Marksheet Secondary School Examination Certificate स(cid:529)ािपत कापी देने की कृ(cid:599)ा करे ।

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 24.05.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

“चाही गई जानकारी अिधकार चाही अिधिनयम 2005 के अंतग१त तृतीय प঴कार की गोपनीय सूचना है। तृतीय प঴कार की िबना पूवा१नुमती / सहमित के िकसी भी ঋकार की सूचना उपल(cid:617) नही ंकराई जा सकती है। अतः आपका आवेदन सूचना अिधकार अिधिनयम की धारा 8 (1) (ड) के अंतग१त अ(cid:738)ीकृत िकया जाता है।

साथ ही यह भी सूिचत िकया जाता है की यिद ঋाथ५ (Sajjan Kaur) चाहे तो CBSE की website www.cbse.nic.in पर जाकर duplicate documents के िलए ऑनलाइन आवेदन कर िनधा१ौरत शु(cid:651) जमा करवाकर ঋा(cid:593) कर सकते है।”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.06.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 05.08.2024 observed as under :-

“The information sought confidential information of the third party under the Right to Information Act 2005. No information can be provided without the permission/prior consent of the third party. Hence your application is rejected under Section 8 (1)(j) of the Right to Information Act.

There is no provision for issuing certified photocopy of documents.

However, applicant may herself/ himself apply for the duplicate mark sheet by visiting website: www.cbse.nic.in”

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 04.10.2024.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Omprakash Pipar, Section Officer, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia endorsed the reply given by the CPIO and stated that in absence of any authority or consent document from the concerned certificate-holder, the information related to third-party could not be disclosed to the appellant, as per provisions under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent parties and perusal of records, observes that an appropriate response has been given by the CPIO, as per provisions of the RTI Act. Further, in the absence of the appellant or any written objections thereof, the Commission finds no scope for further intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal i

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top