Vishnu Rajgadia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences

Page 2

3. On close scrutiny it was found that the CPIO has replied within stipulated time. The RTI was received on 16-05-2024 and reply was given vide F No. 344/B-25011/12/24-(RTI) Dt 22/05/2024. (Annexure 1, II) The information desired was third party information and as per the RTI Act 2005 cannot be disclosed as per Sec 8.1(c, h, j) and Sec. 11."

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Not present

Respondent: Dr. Venkatesh, AIIMS, Kalyani- participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.

The Respondent stated that the relevant information has been duly provided to the Appellant. A written submission dated 13.08.2025 has been received from the Respondent. The relevant extract whereof is as under:

:..The appellant Dr Vishnu Rajgadia has filed one RTI application and one appeal. All have which have been processed and replied to within the specified time. He had sought information relating to the cases of Sexual Harassment by any Senior Resident Doctor or other accused at AIIMS Kalyani (W.B.) since January 2024 till the time of application, which was duly responded. The appellant should know that under the provision of Laws and Procedures against Sexual Harassment in the Workplace, the details of such cases cannot be disclosed to maintain the confidentiality. The CPIO is not supposed to provide the information which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person, information which would impede the process of investigation or information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. In this matter, sections 8 (g), (h) and (j) are applicable of the RTI Act, 2005 are applicable as the complaints of sexual harassment are matter of investigation, the disclosure of the details may reveal the identity of the accused and complainant breaching their privacy and/or physical safety and the CIPO is of the opinion that no broader public interest is related to the information.."

Decision:

Upon perusal of records, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by concerned PIO. Furthermore, the written submission filed by the PIO is self-explanatory and comprehensive. Thus, information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act. 2 / 4

2

Page 3

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मखु्य सचूना आयकु्त) Authenticated true copy

(अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत)

S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. नचटकारा)

Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)

011-26186535

3 / 4

3

Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 1 / 14 4

4