केन्द्रीय सचू ना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गगं नाथ माग,ग मनु नरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई दिल्ली, New Delhi – 110067 नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NCFSC/A/2024/628151 Ms. Vidya Khobrekar … अपीलकता/ग Appellant VERSUS/बनाम PIO, National Commission for Scheduled Castes …प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date of Decision : 30.07.2025 Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 25.04.2024 PIO replied on : 22.05.2024 First Appeal filed on : 27.05.2024 First Appellate Order on : 24.06.2024 2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 05.07.2024 Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:-

“Provide the information in list the entire work performed by the research officer D Vara Prasad posted on deputation at National Commission for Scheduled Castes Hyderabad State Office. Period of the information- from his joining date to the information providing date.”

The CPIO, vide letter dated 22.05.2024 replied as under:-

“The list of works done by Research Officer Shri D. Vara Prasad is lengthy & voluminous, hence it is not possible to furnish However in a nut a shell, it is to inform that on the date of joining the NCSC as RO, there were huge cases (approx.1000) pending since 2021 for initiation of action by Senior Investigator Ms. Vidya Khobrekar in e GMP. No sooner did the RO join the NCSC, than all the pending cases in e GMP were cleared single handedly within four months of his joining NCSC.

It is pertinent to Inform that the RO being a Pay Level 9 Gazetted officer with an impeccable integrity has brought down the pending cases (since 2021) to zero in e GMP which should have been done by Senior Investigator Ms. Vidya Khobrekar much before.

Apart from e GMP, RTI & other works, the RO has paid spot visits along with the Director and the Hon'ble Member, assisted the Director & the Hon'ble Member in Review Meeting of M/s HAL at Hyderabad and in closure of hundreds of files.”

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.05.2024. The FAA, vide order dated 24.06.2024 replied as under:-

“Please refer to your online RTI application No. NCFSC/R/E/24/00230 date

25/04/2024 and the RTI Order No.07/2024-25 passed by the CPIO.

The information was rejected as the application is vague and the limitation of the work is not specified where in the application is asking information about the entire work performed by Research Officer Shri D Vara Prasad, National Commission for scheduled castes, State office, Hyderabad. Some of the duties performed by Research Officer Shri D Vara Prasad demands confidentiality hence cannot be disclosed to the Third party. The information sought is not clear and no public interest is involved, so the application can be rejected under section 8(1).

When a Right to Information (RTI) application is rejected by the Public Information Officer (PIO) under Section 8 of the RTI Act, it means the information requested is exempt from disclosure under specific grounds. Here's what each subsection means:

Section 8(1)(d): This clause exempts information that is commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property, where disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party. However, if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm, information can be released.

Section 8(1)(g) : This clause pertains to information that would endanger the life or physical safety of any person identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes.

Section 8(l)(h) * z This clause exempts information that would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

Section 8(1)(j) : This clause pertains to personal information which has no relation to any public activity , or which would cause unwarra