Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Central Information Commission (CIC): In a second appeal concerning information sought regarding the appellant’s 4 nominations under the Pradhan Mantri Rashtriya Bal Puraskar (PMRBP), the Information Commissioner, P.R. Ramesh held that mere custody of evaluation records or their forming part of an internal selection process does not, by itself, establish a fiduciary relationship under Section 8(1)(e), Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), and that a general assertion of third-party information cannot justify withholding the entire record where reasonably severable information exists under Section 10, RTI Act. The Commission directed the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Women & Child Development, to furnish the status of the appellant’s nominations, the exact URL/hyperlink to the PMRBP guidelines and aggregate statistical data regarding nominations received, shortlisted and finally selected, after redacting exempt information under Section 10, RTI Act.
Also Read: Student seeks evaluated Answer Script, University demands ₹1,000: CIC Says RTI Rules Override
Background
The appellant had submitted 4 nominations under the PMRBP for the award cycles 2023, 2024 and 2025 and sought information regarding their status, evaluation records, scores, rankings, committee observations, selection criteria, deficiency notes and aggregate statistics concerning nominations received and selected. The CPIO denied several queries under Section 8(1)(e) and (j), RTI Act, treating the evaluation records as confidential and fiduciary in nature. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the response, following which the appellant approached the CIC.
Before the CIC, the appellant contended that the information concerning his nominations could be disclosed after redacting exempt portions under Section 10, RTI Act. The respondent submitted that the evaluation records contained comparative assessments and information relating to other candidates, could not be separated from the exempt portions.
Analysis and decision
The Commission considered the appellant’s 10 queries relating to his 4 PMRBP nominations for the 2023, 2024 and 2025 award cycles, examined the CPIO and FAA’s approach of treating the entire selection and evaluation record as confidential and fiduciary. The expression “fiduciary relationship” has been judicially understood to refer to a relationship in which one person acts for the benefit of another and owes a duty of confidence and good faith. Referring to Section 8(1)(e), RTI Act and CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, the Commission observed that a fiduciary relationship cannot be established merely because information is held confidentially or forms part of an internal process, and mere custody of evaluated records does not, by itself, create such a relationship.
The Commission, however, acknowledged that comparative evaluation records may contain information relating to other candidates, disclosure of which may attract Section 8(1)(j), RTI Act. The Commission observed that while personal information of other nominees, comparative assessments of identifiable third parties and confidential information furnished by third parties could not be disclosed where exempt under Section 8(1)(j), RTI Act, a general assertion that the records contain other candidates’ information was insufficient to establish that no reasonably severable portion exists. Thereafter, the Commission, in response to Point 1, found that the CPIO had failed to clearly specify the stage-wise status of each of the appellant’s 4 nominations and had instead provided a vague response.
For Points 2—5, the Commission noted that the CPIO had stated that separate scores or rankings were not maintained in a form capable of independent disclosure. For Point 6, although the CPIO had stated that the PMRBP Scheme Guidelines and nomination-related instructions were publicly available, the Commission noted that no web link/hyperlink and leading to the information had been provided.
For Point 7, the Commission found the response substantive, as no fixed minimum qualifying marks, scores, rankings or selection thresholds were prescribed or maintained and selection was based on holistic assessment, the CPIO was not required to create or compile information not maintained by the public authority. For Point 8, it noted that no specific deficiency note, adverse remark, or objection resulting in rejection of the appellant’s nominations had been recorded. As regards Point 9, the Commission held that aggregate figures of nominations received, shortlisted and selected were distinguishable from personal information of individual nominees, and the CPIO had not sufficiently explained how disclosure of such aggregate data, identities or personal particulars, would attract Section 8(1)(e) or Section 8(1)(j), RTI Act.
Allowing the second appeal in part, the Commission directed the CPIO to furnish the status of the appellant’s nominations, the exact URL/hyperlink and complete path to the PMRBP information sought, and the statistical data of nominations received, shortlisted and finally selected, within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The CPIO was directed to ensure that any exempt information was redacted under Section 10, RTI Act, before disclosure. For the remaining queries, the Commission found the response of the CPIO appropriate and disposed of the appeal accordingly.
[Zain Eqbal v. CPIO: Ministry of Women & Child Development, CIC/MOWCD/A/2026/641779, decided on 1-10-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the appellant: Ahmad Shakir and Asim Akram, Advocates
