'Bias in promotions': CIC allows JNU professor to inspect records after varsity cites privacy clause

New Delhi: The Central Information Commission has allowed a professor at the Jawaharlal Nehru University to inspect the varsity’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 set aside the university's denial in the matter in an RTI reply.

The case stems from an RTI application filed by Moushumi Basu, a faculty member at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), seeking details of promotion cases under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) between February 2022 and March 2025, including names of faculty members, stages of promotion, and dates of interviews and orders, along with pending cases.

In its reply, 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 preventing 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 the specific information about the list of faculty members, date of their joining, promotions, etc., had been denied by the respondent, ignoring the fact that the appellant was also one of the employees of the university 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 they "cannot be denied under any of the exemption clauses" of the RTI Act.

The university, however, 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 the “main premise of the instant appeal was apprehension of discriminatory treatment” in promotions.

Citing a Karnataka High Court ruling, the CIC noted that "denying information virtually amounts to denying 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 reply of the CPIO is set aside," the Commission said.

The CIC also directed JNU to "afford an opportunity of 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 documents sought by the appellant are to be provided "as permissible under the RTI Act, 2005, upon receipt of requisite fees", the order said.