CIC/RM/A/2014/000313-SA. Case: A.L. Agarwal Vs Delhi University. Central Information Commission

Case NumberCIC/RM/A/2014/000313-SA
CounselFor Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: Jay Chanda, JR & CPIO and Henry H. Baa
JudgesM. Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner
IssueNational Commission For Women Act, 1990 - Sections 10(1), 8 (1); Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 16, 19(a)(1), 8, 8 (1) (e), 8 (1) (g), 8 (1) (j), 8(1), 8(1)(g), 8(1)(j), 9; Sexual Harassment Of Women At Workplace (prevention, Prohibition And Redressal) Act, 2013 - Section 16
Judgement DateDecember 09, 2015
CourtCentral Information Commission

Court Information Central Information Commission Cases
Judgment Date 09-Dec-2015
Party Details A.L. Agarwal Vs Delhi University
Case No CIC/RM/A/2014/000313-SA
Judges M. Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner
Advocates For Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: Jay Chanda, JR & CPIO and Henry H. Baa
Acts National Commission For Women Act, 1990 - Sections 10(1), 8 (1); Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 16, 19(a)(1), 8, 8 (1) (e), 8 (1) (g), 8 (1) (j), 8(1), 8(1)(g), 8(1)(j), 9; Sexual Harassment Of Women At Workplace (prevention, Prohibition And Redressal) Act, 2013 - Section 16

Decision:

M. Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner

1. The appellant is present. Mr. Jay Chanda, JR & CPIO and Mr. Henry H. Baa represent Public Authority.

FACTS:

2. The appellant is seeking information about a document issued by the Faculty of Medical Sciences No. FMDS/247/Complaint/PG/MAMC/2012/3766 dated 28-12-12 and the related information. Claiming that no information was received from the Public Authority, he approached the Commission under 2nd appeal after exhausting the first appeal.

PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION:

3. Dr. A.L. Agarwal, appellant filed RTI application dated 06.09.2013 seeking the following:

"1. Certified copy of document: FMDS/247/Complaint/PG/MAMC/2012/3766 dated 28.12.2012.

2. Certified copy of all the correspondence/file noting in connection to this document.

3. Copy of the rules, under which this document has been issued.

4. Copy of the rules, which permits a medical teacher to be the thesis guide of 3 PGs every year."

4. Mr. Jay Chanda, Central Public Information Officer of the university replied through a letter dated 27.09.2013, quoting the response of Dy. Registrar (Faculty of Medical Sciences) who said that disclosure of such information would be inappropriate, as it would endanger the physical safety of the complainants/accused. Further, such personal information is held by the University in fiduciary relationship with the individuals concerned. Therefore, as per input of Deputy Registrar (Faculty of Medical Sciences), that the request of the applicant attracts section 8(1)(g) read with section 8(1)(j) & (e), and as per advice of Deputy Registrar, CPIO has transferred the original application to the PIO, National Commission for Women. The CPIO also furnished copy of letter written by Deputy Registrar.

5. Being unsatisfied, Dr. A.L. Aggarwal filed First Appeal on 19.10.2013. She disputed the Deputy Registrar's contention that section 8(1)(g), (j) & (e) of RTI Act would authorize them not to disclose. She also questioned the presumption of Delhi University that NCW would release the information. She stated that "obviously it is wrong to say that disclosure of information about University rules is exempted under section 8(1)(g), (j) & (e) of RTI Act or NCW would provide it". The appellant pleaded that rule of severability should have been used in relation to point 'B'. The Registrar and Appellate Authority had upheld the contention of the Deputy Registrar and transfer of application to NCW. Then appellant filed second appeal, claiming that PIO of National Commission for Women did not furnish any reply and her first appeal dated 15.12.2013 was also not replied. She pleaded the following grounds:

"A. Document No. FMDS/247/Complaint/PG/MAMC/2012/3766 dated 28.12.12 has been created and issued by the Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi. Hence, University of Delhi is the custodian of this document and not the National Commission for Women.

B. The Hon'ble CIC can satisfy itself by perusing the said document that it contains no reference to the National Commission for Women and instead has reference to some GB Pant Hospital document, which has also not been released.

C. 4 point information about this document was denied by University of Delhi on the pretext that National Commission for Women is the seat of Enquiry and thus transferred the RTI application to them.

D. The Medical Council of India stipulates that not more than 2 PG students can be admitted per year per recognized PG teacher and accordingly one PG teacher cannot be thesis guide to more than 2 PG students per year."

6. She requested the Commission to examine the file and direct for release of complete information as sought in RTI application.

7. During hearing, the CPIO and other officers of the University claimed that the PG students filed complaints against the appellant and her husband, alleging sexual harassment and as per the law details about complaint and related information could not be given to two doctors -husband and wife (appellant). The Commission on 03.11.2015 exercising its power under section 19(a)(1) of RTI Act directed Mr. Henry H. Baa, Joint Registrar (Faculty of Medical Sciences), Delhi University to produce record before the Commission...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT