2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 6918

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Sanjeev Kumar Jindal, Information Commissioner
Amit Singh – Appellant
Versus
CPIO Indian Military Academy – Respondent
CIC/IARMY/A/2024/654492

Under the RTI Act, 2005, a blanket denial of information regarding recruitment candidates under Section 8(1)(j) is improper. Instead, public authorities must apply Section 10 to sever or redact exempt personal information while disclosing non-exempt details like names and roll numbers.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1)(j) and 10 - Disclosure of candidate details in public recruitment - Whether names and roll numbers of candidates shortlisted for skill test and waiting list are exempt from disclosure as third-party personal information - Commission held that blanket denial of names and roll numbers is not justified - Where information contains exempt personal data, the same should be redacted or severed in accordance with Section 10 prior to disclosure - Respondent directed to provide revised reply. (Paras 7-9)

Facts of the case:
The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information regarding a recruitment process for the post of Messenger at the Indian Military Academy. The CPIO denied disclosing names, categories, marks, and salary details of candidates and employees, citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, claiming it constitutes third-party personal information and that the academy is a sensitive defence training establishment.

Findings of Court:
The Commission observed that while some personal details may be exempt, a blanket refusal to share names and roll numbers of candidates in a completed public recruitment process is unjustified. It directed the respondent to provide a revised reply by redacting exempt information in accordance with Section 10.

Issues: Whether the names, roll numbers, and personal details of candidates in a public recruitment process are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Ratio Decidendi: The disclosure of candidate names and roll numbers in a public recruitment process serves a public interest and does not per se compromise security, hence a blanket denial under Section 8(1)(j) is improper; rather, exempt personal data should be redacted using the doctrine of severability under Section 10.

Result: Appeal disposed of with directions.