New Delhi, March 23 The Central Information Commission has allowed a professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University to inspect the university's promotion records after he moved the commission alleging "bias in promotions" and claiming that "ineligible candidates are getting promoted due to undue favour from the higher-ups".
The Central Information Commission (CIC) also overturned the university's denial in its response to an RTI request.
The case stems from an RTI application filed by Moushumi Basu, a faculty member at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), seeking details of promotion cases under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) between February 2022 and March 2025, including the names of faculty members, stages of promotion, and dates of interviews and orders, along with pending cases.
In its response, the university provided only numerical figures – "215 Nos." for promotion cases and "89 Nos." for pending cases – stating that "the other information is exempted from disclosure under sections 8(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005".
Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act are key exemptions that prevent the disclosure of information. While the first section protects information held in a fiduciary capacity, 8(j) protects personal information that causes unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless a larger public interest justifies the disclosure.
During the hearing, Basu said she was given "only vague numeric figures" of pending cases under the CAS without any supporting documents.
Basu said that specific information about the list of faculty members, their joining dates, promotions, etc., had been denied by the respondent, despite the fact that the appellant was also one of the university's employees who doubted that ineligible candidates were being promoted due to "undue favour" from the higher-ups.
She also contended that such data had been shared by the university in Parliament replies, and that they "cannot be denied under any of the exemption clauses" of the RTI Act.
However, the university maintained that "complete personal data of all faculties contain elements of personal information of third parties" held in a fiduciary capacity, and, therefore, they cannot be disclosed.
Observing that the matter arose from a service-related grievance, Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi said that "the main premise of this appeal was the apprehension of discriminatory treatment" in promotions.
Citing a Karnataka High Court ruling, the CIC noted that "denying information virtually amounts to denying an opportunity" to pursue remedies in such matters.
It also held that "there is no scope for invoking Section 8(1)(j)" in cases where an employee seeks information to address grievances related to promotion, seniority, or similar service issues.
"In light of the above discussion, the impugned response from the CPIO is overturned," the Commission said.
The CIC also directed JNU to "provide an opportunity for inspection of relevant records", and asked it to provide a list of files connected to the RTI application, including file numbers, subject, and number of pages.
Copies of the documents sought by the appellant are to be provided "as permissible under the RTI Act, 2005, upon receipt of the required fees," the order said.