Central Information Commission – Artifex.News https://artifex.news Stay Connected. Stay Informed. Sun, 19 Jul 2026 17:19:00 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.2 https://artifex.news/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/cropped-cropped-app-logo-32x32.png Central Information Commission – Artifex.News https://artifex.news 32 32 CIC directs IITs to form high-level committees to curb student deaths by suicides https://artifex.news/article71241308-ecerand29/ Sun, 19 Jul 2026 17:19:00 +0000 https://artifex.news/article71241308-ecerand29/ Read More “CIC directs IITs to form high-level committees to curb student deaths by suicides” »

]]>

Expressing concern over recurring student suicides across Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), the Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the institutions to constitute high-level committees to recommend measures for preventing such deaths and mitigating the factors that contribute to them.

The direction came while disposing of appeals filed by Dheeraj Kumar Singh, an alumnus of IIT-Kanpur and founder of a non-governmental organisation (NGO) engaged in student rehabilitation and mental health counselling.

Mr. Singh, under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, had sought details regarding the students, research scholars, and staff who ended their lives at IIT-Madras, IIT-Kanpur, IIT-Goa, and IIT-Jodhpur since January 1, 2005.

He wanted information including age, gender, caste/category, academic programme, native State, date of suicide, and whether the death occurred on the campus. Stating that the details were required for academic research, he said the names of the deceased could be withheld if necessary.

Details withheld

In response, IIT-Madras informed him that seven suicides had been reported between 2019 and June 26, 2025, but declined to disclose personal details, such as age and caste, citing the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act relating to personal information. The First Appellate Authority upheld the decision. IIT-Kanpur informed the applicant that 17 suicides had been reported between 2005 and 2025. The data furnished by the institute showed that at least one suicide was reported every year during the period, with three cases recorded in 2024. However, it too withheld the personal particulars of the deceased under Section 8(1)(j).

Similarly, IIT-Goa denied disclosure of personal information, describing it as third-party information exempt from disclosure, while IIT-Jodhpur informed the applicant that no such cases had been reported. Aggrieved over the denial of complete information, Mr. Singh moved an appeal before the CIC. He contended that the information he had called for was essential to analyse the root causes of student suicides across factors such as age, gender, and social category, and would help strengthen his organisation’s mental health counselling programmes for students facing academic and personal stress.

The information was crucial to strengthen the NGO’s programmes for uplift and counselling of students. The IITs, however, maintained that disclosure of the age, caste, and identity of deceased students would violate the privacy of the individuals and their families.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) versus Union of India case, provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, the institutions argued that such information constituted protected personal data and could not be disclosed in the absence of an overriding public interest.

Central Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi said the institutes had already furnished information, including the number of deaths, date of occurrence, gender, native place, and place of death, while withholding names, age and caste/category on privacy grounds. The replies of the Central Public Information Officers were legally sustainable.

‘Persistent crisis’

However, the Commission expressed concern over the continuing incidence of suicides on campuses of IITs.

Referring to the “persistent crisis” of multiple suicides reported annually across several IITs, particularly at campuses such as IIT-Kanpur and IIT-Kharagpur, it observed that there was an urgent need for institutions to strengthen preventive mechanisms.

The Commission directed IITs to constitute high-level committees, where such bodies have not already been formed, to identify and recommend measures to mitigate the factors contributing to student suicides.

It also asked that information relating to the constitution of these committees be proactively disclosed on the institutes’ official websites, in line with the RTI Act. The direction was in tune with the observations of the Supreme Court in the Kishan Chand Jain versus Union of India case.

(Assistance for overcoming suicidal thoughts is available on the State’s health helpline 104, Tele-MANAS 14416. and Sneha’s suicide prevention helpline 044-24640050)

Published – July 19, 2026 10:49 pm IST



Source link

]]>
Bat for the better: On the BCCI and the RTI Act https://artifex.news/article71007171-ece/ Thu, 21 May 2026 19:01:00 +0000 https://artifex.news/article71007171-ece/ Read More “Bat for the better: On the BCCI and the RTI Act” »

]]>

The RTI Act was originally designed to scrutinise the state, a limit that the BCCI has repeatedly tested thanks to its outsized power. The BCCI is a private body that operates commercially and lacks direct public financing. RTI disclosures could expose competitive information and compromise the flexibility required to govern a sport, especially since the BCCI already has anti-corruption measures and comes under judicial review if required. If the BCCI is brought under the Act’s remit, there is also a risk of political forces abusing transparency requirements to exert greater influence on cricket administration. Even so, the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) recent decision to exclude the BCCI from the RTI Act is unlikely to go uncontested because the body has also monopolised a national sport. The BCCI benefits from national symbolism, police deployment at matches, concessional land allotments, and State hospitality; uses public stadium infrastructure; enjoys the regulatory privileges accruing to its monopoly status; and negotiates with foreign boards in ways that sometimes overlap with diplomacy. These liberties have thus sustained civil society concerns about being unable to scrutinise its conflicts of interest and governance arrangements.

Under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, the BCCI is not a constitutional or statutory body and was not created by government notification, leaving the matter to turn on whether it can be said to be under state control or financing. Following disputes in 2005 and 2013, the Supreme Court repeatedly said in 2015-16, when the BCCI was adopting the Lodha committee recommendations, that it performs public duties. The Law Commission furthered this position in 2018 because, it added, the BCCI also serves as a National Sports Federation without the Sports Ministry recognising it as one and received tax exemptions worth ₹2,100 crore in 1997-2007 alone, a figure the Commission interpreted as foregone state revenue. Subsequently, former Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu ruled the BCCI to be a public authority under Section 2(h). The Madras High Court stayed the order, and the CIC has now reversed the ruling. The CIC has admitted that the BCCI exerts a significant influence on public life while insisting that its decision is based on Section 2(h) alone. There is a contradiction between writ jurisdiction applying to the BCCI — as the Court affirmed in 2015 — even as the body is private enough to conceal its internal records. At this time, Section 2(h) should be amended to include any body discharging public duties, especially with monopoly power, perhaps by creating a category that simultaneously protects the BCCI’s commercial interests. Courts must also treat tax exemptions as a form of state grant.



Source link

]]>
BCCI not a public authority under RTI Act: CIC https://artifex.news/article70993275-ece/ Mon, 18 May 2026 09:33:00 +0000 https://artifex.news/article70993275-ece/ Read More “BCCI not a public authority under RTI Act: CIC” »

]]>

The CIC said BCCI is a private autonomous body registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and was not established by the Constitution, Parliament, State legislature or through a government notification. File.
| Photo Credit: PTI

The Central Information Commission on Monday (May 18, 2026) said the Board of Control for Cricket (BCCI) in India is not a “public authority” under the RTI Act as it is neither owned, controlled nor substantially financed by the government.

The Commission dismissed an appeal seeking information regarding the provisions and authority under which BCCI represents India and selects players for national and international cricket tournaments.

The CIC said BCCI is a private autonomous body registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and was not established by the Constitution, Parliament, State legislature or through a government notification.

“The BCCI cannot be classified as a ‘Public Authority’ within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and the provisions of the Act are therefore inapplicable to it in the facts and circumstances of the present case,” Information Commissioner P R Ramesh said in his order.



Source link

]]>