Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2010/000499
CIC/AD/A/2010/000476
Dated July 7, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Mr. Mahender
Name of the Public Authority : AIIMS
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dated 08.12.2009 with the CPIO, All India Institute of
Medical Sciences Hospital [AIIMS] seeking information as to whether any child was born from Smt.
Santosh. The CPIO responded vide letter dated 11.12.2009 denying the information as sought by the
Applicant on the ground that the said information pertained to patient care records and related issues
regarding Third party patient which are privileged communication between the hospital and the patient
in a confidential fiduciary relationship. The Respondent rejected the RTI application, seeking exemption
under provisions of Section 8 (1) (e) and 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005, and stating that the information as
sought by the Applicant related to a third party patient, and hence could only be provided to him/her or
to Court of law.
2. Being aggrieved with such response from the CPIO, the Applicant was constrained to file a First
Appeal dated 19.12.2009. Apart from reiteration of the facts as stated in his RTI application,
and the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant provided some additional facts about the case. As per
the additional facts provided by the Appellant, he is a pairokar in a criminal case in which his
nephew was murdered and one of the accused in the said criminal proceedings claims himself
to be a juvenile. The question yet to be determined by the Juvenile Justice BoardII, New Delhi
is whether the delinquent is a juvenile or not and whether he is the son of Smt. Santosh and his
date of birth on 17.11.1984, as claimed before the Juvenile Justice BoardII is correct or not.
Hence the Appellant stated that the records of birth given by the said Smt. Santosh before the
Juvenile Justice Board are essential to prove the exact date of birth of the accused. However
not having received any response from the Respondent Appellate Authority, the Appellant was
constrained to file the instant Second Appeal before the CIC on 27.01.2010 narrating the entire
sequence of facts as also the additional facts pertaining to the Criminal case pending at the
Juvenile Justice Board. The hearing in this case was fixed for 11.05.2010 and the Commission
issued notice dated 27.04.2010 to all the relevant parties.
4. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, heard the matter on 11 May,
2010.
5. Dr. Singh, Dy. HS and Mr. Kundan Kumar, Admn. Officer represented the Public Authority.
6. The Appellant was present alongwith Sh. Hardeep Singh, Advocate and Sh. Yashvir Singh,
Advocate during the hearing.
7. On 11.05.2010,during the hearing it transpired that the Third Party in this case being Smt.
Santosh, in this case ought to be heard. Hence the hearing was adjourned to 28.06.2010 and
notice/s were accordingly sent to the Third Party.
8. Dr. D K Sharma, Medical Superintendent represented the Public Authority.
9. The Appellant was present Sh. Yashvir Singh, Advocate during the hearing.
Decision
10. During the hearing, from the submissions of the parties and the documents placed on record, it
transpired that two certificates had been produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, on the
basis of which the accused was treated as a Juvenile and granted bail. Out of the said two
certificates, one was a birth certificate issued by NDMC of birth of a male child of Sh. Udham
Singh and Smt. Santosh on 17.11.1984. However the said certificate of NDMC did not carry the
date of birth of the child and hence was not accepted by the Court. The second document
produced before the Juvenile Justice Board was a school certificate of Sarvodaya Vidhyalaya, D
Block, Janakpuri and a school leaving certificate of Sr. Secondary School, Veer Khera,
Bulandshahar, UP. This school leaving certificate was found to be fake and forged as the record
clerk, Sh. Teeka Ram Sharma of Sr. Secondary School, Veer Khera, Bulandshahar, UP
produced the record of the said school before the Board [Juvenile Justice Board] stating that the
accused never studied in their school from the year/s 199697, 199798. Pursuant to this the
vigilance officials conducted an enquiry and it was found that the school certificate was indeed
fake and forged. On the basis of the report of the Vigilance officials, a case had been registered
vide FIR No. 385/2006 u/s 420/468/471 IPC at Police Station Mayapuri, New Delhi on
03.10.2006.
9. The Appellant while seeking the instant information through the RTI application narrated the
cause of his doubt about the veracity of the Birth Certificate issued by NDMC. The application
filed by the Appellant before the Juvenile Justice Board has also been placed on record
providing the entire background of the case and the reason for seeking the information.
10. Based on the records of the case and the submissions of the parties, the Commission could find
no reason as to why the information as to whether a male child was indeed born on 17.11.1984
to Smt. Santosh cannot be furnished. No confidentiality would be infringed in responding atleast
in either affirmative or negative. The information of this nature in a plain ‘YES’ or ‘NO’ could not
lead to breach of the fiduciary relation nor can it termed as personal information, as it exists in
public domain already. Moreover in the instant case, the interest of justice and larger public
interest demand that such an accused who has allegedly submitted forged documents should
not be allowed to go scott free, on bail seeking the protection of being a juvenile. The CIC in its
considered opinion, directs that the information as sought by the Appellant should be furnished
by or before 30th July 2010.
The Judgment in the case was reserved and pronounced in Chamber on 7th July 2010.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Mr. Mahender
RZL24, Shanker Park,
West Sagar Pur, New Delhi
2. Public Information Officer
AIIMS, Ansari Nagar
New Delhi
3. Appellate Authority
AIIMS, Ansari Nagar
New Delhi
4. Officer in charge NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC