Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 5264
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Bhoomi Chattar Singh Rachhoya – Appellant
Versus
PIO, SDM (CCS-HQ), O/o the Divisional Commissioner – Respondent
CIC/REVDP/A/2023/120109|CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/142501
Caste verification reports for reserved election seats disclosable under RTI due to overriding public interest in election integrity.
Headnote:First Paragraph: The Right to Information Act, 2005, particularly Section 8(1)(j), exempts personal information unrelated to public activity or interest unless larger public interest justifies disclosure. Appellant sought caste verification report used for contesting reserved seat elections. Court found public interest in election integrity and reservation policies outweighs privacy. Second Paragraph: Key issue: Whether third-party caste verification report for election eligibility is disclosable under RTI Act. Ratio: Documents submitted for public benefits like reserved seats lose privacy protection; disclosure ensures fair elections, prevents misuse of reservations, and upholds constitutional social justice. Last Paragraph: Appeals disposed of; respondents directed to provide certified copy of caste verification report, provided during hearing satisfying appellant.
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.01.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
Not having received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.03.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 23.03.2023, held as under:
“An appeal filed by Mrs. Bhumi Chatar Singh Rachhauya (Appellant) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in reference to his RTI request no. 26465. First appeal was heard on 23.03.2023 at 03:30 PM. Sh. Chatar Singh Rachhauya (on behalf of Appellant) and Sh. Anil Kumar, Senior Assistant (CCS Branch, Revenue Department (HQ) were present on behalf of PIO/ADM-1 (CCS Branch, Revenue Department (HQ) for the hearing pursuant to the notice issued in this regard.
Both the Appellant and Respondent were heard during the hearing, the Respondent informed that the RTI application was forwarded to Central District, Revenue Department and also informed that in his RTI application Appellant seeks third party information. The Respondent is directed to inform the appellant in writing within 10 days.”
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
File No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/142501 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.07.2023 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 16.08.2023 First Appellate Authority’s order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18.10.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.07.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
Not having received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.08.2023. The FAA’s order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Chattar Singh Rachhoya appeared in person on behalf of the appellant.
Respondent: Shri J. Anand Kumar, Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar O/o, SDM, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (Respondent 1); Shri Sanjay Kumar Madan, Section Officer/APIO and Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Assistant, O/o- Divisional Commissioner, (Respondent No. 2) appeared in person.
The appellant inter alia submitted that despite directions of the FAA, no reply was received from the concerned PIO of CCS Branch, Revenue Department (HQ) within the stipulated time. He further submitted that Smt. Hemlata has contested elections for Municipal Councilor (Nigam Parshad) on a reserved seat, and therefore, her caste certificate is a crucial public document. He argued that if the caste certificate is fraudulent, it directly impacts on the electoral process and outcome. Thus, making the verification report a matter of larger public interest because the reserved constituency has to be represented by an ‘eligible person’.
The appellant’s representative requested the Commission that a copy of the said Caste Verification Report be provided to him that will suffice his purpose. The appellant argued that when a caste certificate is used to avail reservations in elections, it falls within the ambit of larger public interest, making its verification report subject to disclosure.
The respondents initially denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, citing third-party information. However, during the hearing, the respondents acknowledged that a caste verification report had been prepared by the CCS Branch (HQ), Revenue Department, Delhi, and submitted to the Tehsildar (Karol Bagh) on 16.10.2023.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that the appellant sought information regarding caste certificate to one Smt. Hemlata, including the documents used as a basis for issuing the certificate. The appellant restricted his prayer and prayed for directions to the respondent for providing a copy of the caste verification report of Smt. Hemlata.
Therefore
