Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 4206

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Mr. Babulal Rajak

RTI Act Section 2(f) defines the boundaries of information that public authorities must provide, excluding justifications or reasoning.

Headnote:The judgment examines an appeal under the RTI Act regarding the provision of information related to the establishment and operations of a Counselling Center at IIT Kharagpur, where the appellant claims insufficient information was provided. The Commission identifies that responses from the CPIO did not comply fully with the RTI Act's definition of information as delineated in Section 2(f). Key issues included whether the sought information fell under public authority jurisdiction. The final result directs further clarification on the initial incomplete reply, mandating homework related to information requests.

Table of Content
1. examination of appellant's rti application and responses from cpio. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. details of the hearing and requests not covered under rti. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court's observations on compliance with rti act definitions. (Para 7 , 8)
4. final directives and outcome of the appeal. (Para 9)

ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1) Please provide any documentation available regarding the establishment of the Counselling Center at IIT Kharagpur.

2) Kindly share the mandate and/or goals of the Counselling Center.

3) I request information on the number of personnel in various roles mandated for the Counselling Center and the methodology used to estimate the requirement of said personnel.

4) Please provide details regarding the extent of doctor/therapist-patient confidentiality. Additionally, information on any exemptions to this confidentiality is requested.

5) I would like to understand the reasoning behind the appointment of a Professor as the in-charge of the Counselling Center instead of a qualified mental health expert/professional, considering the sensitive nature of the work of the Counselling Centre. …, etc./ other related information

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 30.07.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

1. Information is not available at the counselling center.

2. The information is already available in the public domain. The counselling center’s official website for the relevant section may be visited.

Link: http://www.counsellingcentre.iitkgp.ac.in?cciit-home

3. The information is already available in the public domain. The counselling center’s official website may be visited for details regarding the number of personnel and their roles. Link:

http://www.counsellingcentre.jitkgp.ac.in/?cciit=people

4. Confidentiality clauses are maintained as per the Mental Healthcare Act 2017.

5. The response to this question is outside the purview of the counselling center. etc.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.08.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 12.08.2024 stated that:

Professor-in-Charge, Counselling Centre, IIT Kharagpur to revisit queries of RTI application of the appellant with respect to this instant First Appeal and to provide additional information (if any) to the Public Information Officer of this Institute latest by 20/08/2024 for onward transmission to the appellant at the earliest.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 06.11.2024.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Babulal Rajak, Joint Registrar, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that sought information on point nos. 5 to 8 had not been provided by the CPIO.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a point-wise suitable reply has been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 30.07.2024. He stated that that the queries raised on point nos. 5 and 8, were not covered within the definition of “information” under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act . A written submission dated 08.10.2025 of the respondent is reproduced as under:-

“Point No. 01 The Administrative Officer (E III CDN) has informed that the information is not available.

Point No. 02 The Counselling Centre has provided a link of an official website wherein the requisite information has already been available in the public domain.

The link is mention below.

http://www.counsellingcentre.iitkgp.ac.in/?cciit=home Point No.03 For this particular query Counselling Centre has provided a link of another official website wherein the sought information regarding counselling Centre is already available in public domain.

http://www.counsellingcentre.iitkgp.ac.in/?cciit-people The link is Point No 04 The Institute has clearly mentione

Click Here to Read the rest of this document