Enquiry findings in relation to the complaints were denied u/s 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(g) - CIC: PIO should have redacted the personal information of other third-party officers by invoking Section 10; Provide broad updated outcome of Appellant’s complaint

CIC: The initial denial of information by the PIO on the plea that the matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Court of Law was inappropriate more particularly when such information as sought by the Appellant is regarding her own complaint which she has every right to know

CIC: Sub-judice is not a ground for denial of information in the RTI Act unless there is an express injunction order passed by the Court prohibiting disclosure as clearly defined in Section 8 (1)(b); Denial is untenable and liable to be set aside

CIC: The only pertinent exemption from disclosure appears to be with respect to the names and identifying particulars of the persons which may be reflected on the noting/comments/reports/statements on the relevant information sought for and cannot be divulged considering the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. and Section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; of the RTI Act; The PIO should have redacted the personal information of other third-party officers by invoking the provisions of Section 10 of RTI Act; PIO is advised to be exercise due diligence in future while responding to the RTI Applications; Provide a revised categorical reply intimating the broad updated outcome of Appellant’s complaint to her

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 04.11.2023 seeking the following information:

“I am writing to request the arrangement of the findings from the enquiry conducted by Mr. M. M. Vashistha on the 24th of August, 2023, at East Point School in Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi - 110096. This enquiry was carried out in relation to the complaints that I & my husband Mr. Sunil Kumar had previously submitted to your esteemed office.

Kindly provide me with the organized report with the supporting documents of the findings at your earliest convenience.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 08.11.2023 stating as under:

“The sought information is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 01.01.2024, held as under.

“On perusal of relevant record made available, it is revealed therefrom that the PIO has not provided the reply to the appellant. Accordingly, the PIO is hereby directed to provide the correct/complete/pointwise reply to the appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act. 2005 within 10 days of receipt of this letter.

Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of with the above directions.”

4. In compliance of FAA’s order the PIO furnished a revised reply dated 05.01.2024 to the appellant as under:

“Kindly refer to order No.DE.3/RTI/FAA/2023/45-46 dated 01/01/2024 on the subject stated above. The revised reply in r/o above stated RTI is as follows-

Reply

As the matter is sub-judice, hence the information sought by the applicant can't be provided as it is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.”

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant:  She, along with her husband, Shri Sunil Kumar present in person.

Respondent:  Shri Pankaj, Principal (on behalf of Ms. Poonam Yadav, PIO, DDE Zone-02 along with Shri Shubham Kumar, TGT present in person.

6. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on respondent while filing the same in CIC on 01.03.2024 is not available on record. On a query, the Respondent confirms non-service.

7. The Appellant contended that the information has been wrongly denied by the Respondent on the ground that matter is sub-judice before Court of Law. She contended that no stay order has been granted by the Hon’ble Court for non-disclosure of any information and the subject matter before Court of law relates to pay fixation while she through instant RTI application sought action taken report on her complaint of harassment by the concerned teacher. She prayed the Commission to direct the Respondent to provide complete information.

8. The Respondent stated that it has been informed to the Appellant that since a court case filed by her is pending before the Court of Law, therefore, inquiry in her complaint was put on hold by the authority concerned waiting the final verdict of the law. At the behest of the Commission, he agreed to intimate the updated and broad outcome of the Appellant’s complaint under reference.

Decision:

9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records observes that the reply provided by the then Respondent in the first instance is rather evasive and fails to comply with the provisions of RTI Act. Firstly, the initial denial of information by the PIO on the plea that the matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Court of Law was inappropriate more particularly when such information as sought by the Appellant is regarding her own complaint which she has every right to know. Sub-judice is not a ground for denial of information in the RTI Act unless there is an express injunction order passed by the Court prohibiting disclosure as clearly defined in Section 8 (1)(b) of the RTI Act. The Respondent is reminded that it is his duty to obtain such an injunction from the Competent Court of Law. However, the Respondent has not obtained any such stay order. Thus, denial is untenable and liable to be set aside.

10. In this context attention of the PIO is drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. R.K. Jain in W.P. (C) 14120/ 2009 dated 23.09.2010 can be cited:

“5...........The matter being sub judice before a court is not one of the categories of information which is exempt from disclosure under any of the clauses of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.”

11. Similarly, this Commission in its decision in Mr. Ashu v. CPIO/ Sr. Supdt of Posts, Department of Posts in CIC/BS/A/2015/001578/11769 dated 28.11.2016 had held as under:

“At the outset it is clarified that the RTI Act provides no exemption from disclosure requirements of sub-judice matters. The only exemption for sub judice matters is regarding what has been expressly forbidden disclosure by a court or a tribunal and what may constitute contempt of court.”

12. The only pertinent exemption from disclosure in the instant matter appears to be with respect to the names and identifying particulars of the persons which may be reflected on the noting/comments/reports/statements on the relevant information sought for and cannot be divulged considering the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. and Section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; of the RTI Act. The then PIO should, with proper application of mind, have redacted the personal information of other third-party officers by invoking the provisions of Section 10 of RTI Act. In this regard, the PIO is advised to be exercise due diligence in future while responding to the RTI Applications.

13. In view of the above, the Respondent is directed to provide a revised categorical reply intimating the broad updated outcome of Appellant’s complaint to her. The said reply/ information should be provided by the present PIO free of cost to the Appellant within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

14. FAA to ensure compliance of the directions The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: Seema Gupta v. Office of the Deputy Director of Education, File No: CIC/DIRED/A/2024/609275; Date of Decision : 25.08.2025