$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 13.10.2025 + W.P.(C) 13829/2025 AADARSH MISHRA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Harish Kumar Gautam, Advocate. versus SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING UNIVERSITY OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Mohinder JS Rupal, Mr. Hardik Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra, Ms. Mayuri Lende, Advocates for SOL (through VC) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed in the context of multiple RTI applications filed by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’) before the concerned Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), School of Open Learning (SOL), University of Delhi. 2. The details pertaining to the said RTI applications filed by the petitioner have been noticed in the impugned order dated 07.04.2025, passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC). The same is reproduced hereunder: 3. Each of the abovementioned RTI applications filed by the petitioner raised several queries, which as enumerated/ recorded in the impugned order dated 07.04.2025 are as under: “Second Appeal No. CIC/UODEL/A/2024/118275 1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.07.2023 seeking information on the following points: 1) The total number of students who took admission in various undergraduate courses in the School of Open Learning (SOL), University of Delhi in the year 2019. 2) The total number of students who graduated (passed 3rd year exams) in various undergraduate courses in the School of Open Learning (SOL), University of Delhi in the year 2019. 3) The number of students who took admission in the year 2019 in BA (Programme) in the School of Open Learning (SOL), University of Delhi. 4) The number of students who graduated (passed 3rd year exams) in BA (Programme) in the School of Open Learning (SOL), University of Delhi in the 2019. 5) The number of students who took admission in the year 2019 in BA (Hons.) Political Science in the School of Open Learning (SOL), University of Delhi. xxx xxx xxx Second Appeal No. CIC/UODEL/A/2024/118269 2. The Appellant tiled an RT1application dated 27.07.2023 seeking information on the following points: 1) The names of the chairperson and members of the Governing Body of the School of Open Learning (SOL), University of Delhi. 2) The dates on which the meetings of the Governing Body of the School of Open Learning (SOL), University of Delhi were held in 2018. 3) The minutes of the meetings of the Governing Body of the School of Open Learning (SOL), University of Delhi held in 2018. 4) The resolutions passed by the Governing Body of the School of Open Learning (SOL), University of Delhi in 2018. 5) The dales on which the meetings of the Governing Body of the School of Open Learning (SOL), University of Delhi were held in 2019. xxx xxx xxx Second Appeal No. CIC/UODEL/A/2024/118272 3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.07.2023 seeking information on the following points: 1) The dates on which the meetings of the Staff Council of the School of Open Learning (SOL), University of Delhi were held in 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. 2) The minutes of the meetings of the Staff Council of the School of Open Learning (SOL), University of Delhi held in 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. 3) The resolutions passed by the Staff Council of the School of Open Leaning (SOL), University of Delhi in 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. ..., etc./ other related information xxx xxx xxx Second Appeal No. CIC/UODEL/A/2024/118273 4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.07.2023 seeking information on the following points: 1) The total number and names of the Staff Council Committees constituted in the academic year of 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 in School of Open Learning, University of Delhi. 2) The names of convener/head and members of the Staff Council Committees during the academic years of 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 in School of Open Learning, University of Delhi. 3) The total number of meetings (with dates) held by PCP Committee during the academic years of 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 in School of Open Leaning, University of Delhi. 4) The minutes of and resolutions passed in each meeting of the PCP Committee held during the academic years of 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 in School of Open Learning, University of Delhi. 5) The recommendations, reports, observations, etc. made by the PCP committee in each meeting held during the academic years of 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 in School of Open Learning, University of Delhi. ..., etc./ other related information xxx xxx xxx Second Appeal No. CIC/UODEL/A/2024/118274 5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.07.2023 seeking information on the following points: 1) Provide a detailed list of all the members of the 2022-23 Staff Council of the School of Open Learning, University of Delhi, along with their qualification, designation, and pay-scale/salary. 2) The total number of Faculty/ Teachers/ appointed for the 1st semester of BA Programme Course in the School of Open Learning (SOL), University of Delhi under the NEP (New UG Programme) in the academic year 2022-23. 3) The total number of Guest Faculty/ Teachers/Teachers appointed for the 1st semester of BA Programme in the School of Open Learning (SOL), University of Delhi under the NEP (New UG Programme) in the academic year 2022-23. Provide with their names, qualification and total salary/payment/remuneration details. 4) The total number of Permanent and Ad-Hoc Faculty/ Teachers appointed for the 1st semester of BA Programme in the School of Open Learning (SOL), University of Delhi under the NEP (New UG Programme) in the academic year 2022-23. Provide with their names, qualification and total salary/payment/remuneration details. 5) The total number of Faculty/ Teachers appointed for the 1st semester of BA (Hons.) Political Science in the School of Open Learning (SOL), University of Delhi under the NEP (New UG Programme) in the academic year 2022-23. ....etc./ other related information. xxx xxx xxx Second Appeal No. CIC/UODEL/A/2024/118270 6. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.07.2023 seeking information on the following points: 1) The procedure for the allotment of study centres/ learner support centres for providing PCP classes to students of the School of Open Learning (SOL), University of Delhi. 2) Provide with the total number of study centres/ learner support centres allotted for the PCP classes to the students of the NEP (New UG Programme) 1st semester of all courses in the School of Open Learning (SOL), University of Delhi in the academic year 2022-2023. 3) Provide with the detailed list of study centres/ learner support centres allotted for the PCP classes to the students of the NEP (New UG Programme) BA (Hons.) Political Science 1st semester in the School of Open Learning (SOL), University of Delhi in the academic year 2022-2023. 4) Provide with the detailed list of study centres/ learner support centres allotted for the PCP classes to the students of the NEP (New UG Programme) BA Programme 1st semester in the School of Open Learning (SOL), University of Delhi in the academic year 2022-2023. 5) Provide with the detailed list of study centres/ learner support centres allotted for the PCP classes to the students of the NEP (New UG Programme) B.Com. 1st semester in the School of Open Learning (SOL), University of Delhi in the academic year 2022-2023. ..., etc./ other related information. xxx xxx xxx Second Appeal No. CIC/UODEL/A/2024/118276 7. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.07.2023 seeking information on the following points: 1) The criteria for selecting content writers for preparation of the NEP (New UG Programme) study material for the School of Open Learning, University of Delhi. Provide with a detailed breakup of the selection criteria. 2) The criteria for choosing the editorial board for preparation of the NEP (New UG Programme) study material for the School of Open Learning, University of Delhi. Provide with a detailed breakup of the selection criteria. 3) All the notification/notice/ announcement for call for writers for preparation of the NEP (New UG Programme) study material for the School of Open Learning, University of Delhi. Provide with the copy of the originally released notification/notice/announcement. 4) The total number of faculty members/ teachers from the University of Delhi involved in the preparation of the study material for NEP (New UG Programme) for the School of Open Learning (SOL), University of Delhi. Provide a detailed list of their names, designation, affiliated department/college/ centre, etc., area of specialisation, and the chapters contributed by them towards the SOL NEP (New UG Programme) study material. 5) The time-period/ time-schedule of preparing the NEP (New UG Programme) study material for the School of Open Learning (SOL), University of Delhi.” 4. In context of the aforesaid RTI applications, certain responses were furnished by the CPIO. It was observed that the RTI applicant/ petitioner had sought voluminous information through the said applications. 5. In the first instance, the information sought was denied by the CPIO by invoking Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, while communicating the said denial to the RTI applicant, it was also stated that “the SOL will be happy to provide specific information to be required by the applicant”. 6. It was in the above backdrop that the matter travelled to the CIC. 7. The impugned order passed by the CIC, considering the plethora of the RTI applications filed by the petitioner, notes as under:- “11. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that appropriate replies have been given by the CPIO’s concerned, however, the exemption claimed by the CPIO u/s 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act is wrong, as in all 7 cases the appellant has sought very voluminous and non¬ specific information, collecting and collating of the same would divert the resources of the public authority and it should have been denied u/s 7 (9) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the appellant’s attention is drawn towards the judgment of the Hon’ble High court of Delhi in the case of The Registrar Supreme Court of India v. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra & Ors LPA 24/2015 & CM No. 965/2015. The following was thus held: "15. On a combined reading of Section 4(1)(a) and Section 2(i), it appears to us that the requirement is only to maintain the records in a manner which facilitates the right to information under the Act. As already noticed above, 'right to information' under Section 2(j) means only the right to information, which is held by any public authority. We do not find any other provision under the Act under which a direction can be issued to the public authority to collate the information in the manner in which is sought by the applicant". 12. Further, it seems that the appellant is seeking voluminous and non-specific information not only with an intention of deliberately diverting the time and resources of the public authority but also exhausting manpower and public resources. In this regard, the appellant’s attention is drawn towards the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others, [(2011) 8 SCC 497]. The following was thus held:- ".67. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the nonproductive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace; tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties." 13. Furthermore, the appellant during the hearing was challenging the merit of the CPIO’s replies. In that regard, the Commission would like to refer to the observations passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 06.12.2023 in Narendra Tyagi vs Assistant Director (CPIO) [LPA 764/2023] extracted as under: “13. Consequently, it is clear that dispute as regards the correctness of information provided under the RTI Act, or any other dispute or controversy, cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under the RTI Act. The CPIO is only required to supply all the information/documents within his access. Whether or not such information as provided by the CPIO under the RTI Act is incorrect in any manner, is not the domain of consideration or determination under the RTI proceedings.” 14. Further, the Commission strictly warns the CPIO to be more careful in future while dealing with the RTI applications and dispose them in accordance with the provision of the RTI Act 2005. In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matters. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.” 8. The observations made by the CIC in the context of the multiple RTI applications filed by the petitioner are found to be unexceptional. The CIC has rightly noted that although exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act was wrongly claimed by the CPIO, the information sought by the RTI applicant/ petitioner is voluminous and non-specific and its collation would entail diversion of substantial time and resources of the public authority. This is apparent from the very nature of the numerous RTI queries / information sought. The CIC has rightly placed reliance on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others, [(2011) 8 SCC 497], particularly, paragraph 67 thereof, wherein, it has been observed that the RTI Act should not be allowed to be misused so as to create a situation which will adversely affect the efficiency of the concerned department. 9. Reliance is also rightly placed upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Narendra Tyagi v. Assistant Director (CPIO), LPA 764/2023. 10. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order warrants no interference in these proceedings, the present petition is, accordingly, dismissed. SACHIN DATTA, J OCTOBER 13, 2025/r W.P.(C) 13829/2025 Page 9 of 9