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

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 9467

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
A. DJIVANANDAME – Appellant
Versus
UT of Puducherry – Respondent
CIC/UTPON/A/2025/114519



##PAGE1##

CIC/UTPON/A/2025/114519

केÛ(cid:289)(cid:547)य सूचना आयोग

Central Information Commission

बाबा गंगनाथ

माग,

(cid:91) मु(cid:467)नरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka

नई (cid:465)दãल(cid:547), New Delhi – 110067

(cid:622)(cid:874)वतीय अपील सÉं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UTPON/A/2025/114519

A. Djivanandame

… अपीलकता/(cid:91) Appellant

VERSUS

बनाम

CPIO: Bharathidasan

Government College for

…(cid:292)(cid:467)तवाद(cid:547)गण/Respondents

Women (Govt. of

Puducherry),

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 25.11.2024 FA : 24.12.2024 SA : 06.03.2025

CPIO : 20.12.2024 FAO : 22.01.2025 Hearing : 13.07.2026

Date of Decision: 15.07.2026

CORAM:

Hon’ble Commissioner

Shri P R Ramesh

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.11.2024 seeking information on

the following points:

1. When Mr. Sasikanthan Das was serving as Principal of Bharadhidasan

Govt. College for women Puducherry, which staff installed a secret camera in

the changing room of the students for the art programme (At the College

Anniversary) being held in the college, please provide their name and

designation, what action did you take as a result of this.

Page 1 of 9

1 / 10

##PAGE2##

CIC/UTPON/A/2025/114519

2. Please provide the date, month and year of the incident whether a committee

was farmed in the college to investigate the matter. please provide name and

designation of the committee chairman, members and legal advisor.

3. Provide the name of the office in which the accused is currently working and

his current designation. In which police station did the college administration

file a complaint, provide the name and designation of the registered police

officer and provide copy of the complaint letter…etc.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.12.2024 and the same is reproduced as under

:-

1 to 3 the information sought for pertains to matter which is sensitive and liable to

be held in fiduciary capacity. As such, it is exempted for disclosure under section

8(1)(e) apart from section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 pertaining to third person.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First

Appeal dated 24.12.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false

and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 22.01.2025 upheld the reply given by the

CPIO.

13. It is as clear as crystal that when the respondent has categorically stated that

the information sought for is not available with the public authority, the appellant

cannot have any grievance that he is entitled to obtain such information. Of

course, much could have been avoided had the respondent has provided proper

information in the first instance itself.

When the respondent has sought pardon, it is only befitting to condone the lapse

and not to precipitate any further.

14. Based on the revised information provided by the respondent, the first appeal

stands disposed.

Page 2 of 9

2 / 10

##PAGE3##

CIC/UTPON/A/2025/114519

6. The appellant has submitted that the denial of information amounts to shielding

the erring officials and hence the information sought may be provided to the

appellant.

7. As a matter of fact, on thorough and complete enquiry made from the concerned

sections, Heads of Departments of the College and legal cell, students grievience

cell, Internal complaint Committee, this respondent came to know that no such

incident was ever reported and no record is available in the College in this

regard. As a matter of fact, this respondent should have provided only such reply

to the applicant/appellant. But due to sheer inadvertence and inadequate

experience in dealing matters under the Act, the respondent has given a reply

stating that the information sought for would fall under exemption clauses of

Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the Act.

8. When such information was not available with the public authority, the question

of seeking exemption does not arise at all. The respondent. stands corrected on the

reply furnished by her.

9. This respondent assures that she would be more careful and cautious in

providing information i

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top