GUJARAT UNIVERSITY Vs. M. SRIDHAR ACHARYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Learned counsels appearing for the respective respondents waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, briefly stated is that Information Commissioner [IC] of the Central Information Commission [CIC] while hearing the Second Appeal No. CIC/SA/C/2015/000275/2015 filed by a third party [Neeraj Saxena] for supply of information about transportation request of Electoral Photo Identity Card of Respondent No.2, has passed the impugned 'adjunct order', whereby, it has suo moto, taken up an oral request of Respondent No.2; converted the same into an RTI application and allowed the said application by directing disclosure of the educational degree of the Prime Minister. The letter written by the Respondent No.2 reads as under:

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the information which is directed to be given could not have been ordered in view of the exemption contained under Sec. 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the Right To Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as " RTI Act " for short). It is the specific case of the petitioner that RTI Act is intended to ensure transparency in "public functionaries" and is not enacted to satisfy just curiosity of strangers. This essential part becomes clear from Sec. 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act which mandates disclosure of information mentioned therein only on the condition stated therein and only after the applicant satisfying and the authority being satisfied about the existence of public interest in such disclosure.