Anti-ragging inquiry reports and communications exempt as personal information under RTI to protect complainant anonymity; administrative details like receipt date, status, and actions disclosable.

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.03.2025 seeking the following information:

“Reference: Ragging complaint bearing ref. no. JK_0052 reported on the National Anti-ragging helpline, reported from your institution. Details of Information Sought:

1) Provide a copy of anti-ragging committee report created for the complaint mentioned above.

2) Provide copies of all internal communications in reference to the abovementioned complaint.

3) Provide information on the date on which this complaint was reported to the institution.

4) Provide information on if the complaint mentioned above was submitted anonymously or with the complainant s name.

5) Please provide information on the disciplinary action taken regarding the complaint mentioned above.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 09.04.2025 stating as under:

“the relevant records and details may be obtained directly from the UGC Anti-Ragging Cell, who are the custodians of the final compiled information in this regard”

3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.04.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 16.05.2025, stating as under-

“The details of complaint and the proceedings are confidential in nature and the action taken has already been communicated to the concerned authority at UGC who are now the custodian of the document as they had sought the report.

Further the issue is not of public interest and hence fall under Section 8(1)(j) and Section 8(2) of the RTI Act 2005.”

4. Challenging the FAA’s order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Shri Rupesh Kumar Jha along with Shri Shubham Kumar present in person.

Respondent: Dr. Vaibhav Gupta, Asst. Admn. Officer along with Dr. Kapil, Chairperson, Anti Ragging Cell present through video conference.

5. Written statement filed by the Appellant and CPIO are taken on record.

6. Appellant in the course of arguments invited attention of the Bench towards the contents of his written statements. Relevant extracts of which are reproduced below for the ease of reference –

“…The request included a copy of the internal Anti-Ragging Committee report, all related internal communications, the date the complaint was reported to the institution, the disclosure of whether the complaint was anonymous, and the details of any disciplinary action taken by the institution in response. In response to the aforementioned application, Respondent No. 1, vide reply dated 09/04/2025, denied the request by stating that the relevant records and details should be obtained directly from the UGC Anti- Ragging Cell, asserting that they are the primary custodians of the final compiled information in this matter.

2) That being aggrieved by the non-provision of a valid response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act on 23/04/2025 before Respondent No. 2. It is noteworthy that the Appellant annexed a formal application requesting a virtual hearing, citing binding orders of the Honourable Central Information Commission which mandate that a hearing must be granted during the first appeal process when explicitly requested by the appellant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA), in complete disregard of the cited Commission orders and in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, passed an order on 22/05/2025 without granting the requested hearing. The FAA not only reiterated the CPIO’s stance regarding the UGC being the custodian but also unilaterally introduced a new ground for exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The FAA erroneously concluded that the proceedings are confidential, lack public interest, and are exempt under Sections 8(1)(j) and 8(2).

REGARDING THE CPIO’S RESPONSE ASKING THE APPELLANT TO SEEK INFORMATION FROM UGC’S ANTIRAGGING CELL:

3) That the CPIO’s response, directing the applicant to obtain information from the UGC Anti-Raggi