CIC/RM/A/2014/001256-SA. Case: Bablu Kumar Singh Vs Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | CIC/RM/A/2014/001256-SA |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: Kailash Saluja, PIO and Rajender Kumar |
| Judges | M. Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner |
| Issue | Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8, 8(1)(d), 9 |
| Judgement Date | November 06, 2015 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
|
Decision: M. Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner 1. The appellant is present for video conference at NIC Studio, Vaishali. The Public Authority represented by Mr. Kailash Saluja, PIO and Mr. Rajender Kumar. FACTS: 2. The appellant through his RTI application, was seeking information regarding the study material for History subject. Claiming that no information was received from the respondent authority, the complainant approached the Commission under in second appeal. Decision: 3. Both the parties made their submissions. The appellant who claimed to be an agriculturist, has asked for the study material in the History subject, under the RTI Act. The CPIO replied to the appellant that the University does not have a policy of providing such material to any person who is not registered as a student with the University. FAA by his order dated 6-11-2013 upheld the decision of the CPIO. The Commission holds that the request for supply of the study material in the form of information, cannot be accepted as the same is the intellectual property of the University. Under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act provides that the PIO can reject the request of an appellant for information which includes intellectual property rights. Section 9 of the RTI Act states that "9. Without prejudice to the provisions of section 8, a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may reject a request for information where such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State." IGNOU is the State in this case. Section 9 specifically says that only when a copy right subsists in a person other than a State, the request can be rejected, which means that if it subsists in the State, it cannot be rejected. However, the study material is supposed to be given only to the registered students, who took proper admission. The study material is not 'Information'. Such material is generally a compilation of... |
To continue reading
Request your trial