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

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 5079

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
RACHIT RAUSHAN – Appellant
Versus
University of Delhi – Respondent
CIC/UODEL/A/2025/617845



##PAGE1##

के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग

Central Information Commission

बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:330), मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka

नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067

File No: CIC/NCCOR/C/2024/646058

P Ramchander Rao …िशकायतकता(cid:330)/Complainant

VERSUS

बनाम

The CPIO ….(cid:366)ितवादीगण /Respondent

Directorate General NCC,

West Block, V.R. K Puram,

New Delhi-110066

Date of Hearing : 21.04.2026

Date of Decision : 22.04.2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL

Relevant facts emerging from Complaint:

RTI application filed on : 06.09.2024

CPIO replied on : 18.09.2024

First appeal filed on : N.A

First Appellate Authority’s : N.A

order

Second Complaint dated : 17.10.2024

Page 1 of 6

1 / 7

##PAGE2##

Information sought:

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application on 06.09.2024 seeking the

following information:

“Please furnish following information

1) Number of sexual harassment complaints filed in NCC

organization between 01 01 2019 to 31.12.2023.

2) Name and designation of Complainant in each

complaint.

3) Name and designation of the official against the

Complaint has been made in each case.

4) Outcome of the enquiry on each complaint.

5) Details of the action taken against the concerned

official found guilty in each compliant.

6) Certified copies of complaints enquiry report and

punitive action taken on the concerned official on each

case.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 18.09.2024 stating as

under:

1) Reference your online RTI application Regn No

NCCOR/R/E/24/00184 dated 06 Sep 2024.

2) The information sought is denied under Para 8 (e) &

(j) of RTI Act, 2005.”

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the

Commission with the complaint, on the ground that no reply has been

received.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present: -

Complainant: Not present

Respondent: Col. Ravi Kumar and Mr. Shailendra Kumar

4. Proof of having served the copy of the complaint to the respondent while

filing the same in CIC is not available on record.

5. The Complainant is not present despite service of notice of hearing.

Page 2 of 6

2 / 7

##PAGE3##

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the

sought information pertains to disciplinary and confidential matter and

therefore information was denied under section 8(e) and (j) of RTI Act,

2005, vide reply dated 18.09.2024, which was given in time.

7. Written submissions dated 10.04.2026 filed by the respondent is taken on

record which states that the complainant had submitted RTI application

dated 06.09.2024 and the information was denied under Para 8 (1) (e) &

(j) of RTI Act, 2005 vide letter dated 18 Sep 2024 and no First Appeal on

the matter was received from the complainant.

Decision:

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the

case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, notes that the

information sought by the complainant pertains to details of complaints

of sexual harassment within the NCC organization, including disclosure of

names and designations of complainants and accused officials, enquiry

reports, and details of action taken. The Commission also notes that the

respondent CPIO had denied the information under section 8(e) and (j) of

RTI Act, 2005, vide reply dated 18.09.2024.

The Commission is of the view that the sought information is intrinsically

sensitive and personal in nature. In this regard, the Commission notes that

the proceedings under sexual harassment complaints are conducted in a

fiduciary and confidential framework. The information is held by the

public authority in trust, thereby attracting exemption under Section

8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Further, the information sought clearly falls within

the ambit of “personal information” under Section 8(1)(j), the disclosure

of which has no relationship with any larger public interest.

The Commission further takes note of Section 16 of the Sexual

Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and

Redressal) Act, 2013, which states as under:

“Notwithstanding anything conta

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