The Central Information Commission (CIC) has pulled up the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER), Mohali, for furnishing what it called an “evasive and misleading” reply to a Right to Information (RTI) application.
In its order dated 27 June 2025, the CIC directed the CPIO to revisit the RTI application and furnish a revised, point-wise reply along with all necessary documents, free of cost, to the appellant via speed/registered post within 15 days of receiving the order. The CPIO must also keep the Commission informed of compliance.
In addition, the CPIO has been ordered to submit a written explanation to the CIC—uploaded on its compliance portal—detailing why such an evasive and misleading reply was given. This must be done within 20 days of receiving the order.
The case relates to Mr. Jitender Kumar Chandel, Deputy Registrar (Finance & Accounts) of NIPER Mohali. The irony is hard to miss: if the institute can mislead one of its own senior officers, what chance does an outsider have when seeking information on its affairs?
Mr. Chandel is no stranger to controversy—he was suspended for various acts of omission and commission during my tenure as Director of NIPER Mohali. In this instance, he filed an RTI request citing urgency, as the information was required to defend his appointment in CWP 7113 of 2022 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
His RTI sought:
- His original application form with all testimonials forwarded by his previous employer, Vigyan Prasar.
- All notings and relevant papers detailing how qualification, eligibility, experience, and evaluation criteria were finalised for the post of Deputy Registrar (F&A) under Advertisement No. 09/2014.
- Minutes of the Screening Committee, records on eligible and non-eligible candidates, and details of all shortlisted candidates, including their qualifications.
- Minutes and recommendations of the Interview Committee, along with all related documents.
On 1 January 2024, the CPIO responded:
“Referring to your RTI application dated 03.12.2023, your RTI request is not covered u/s 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, the permissible information under RTI is under compilation and will be provided shortly.”
This prompted Mr. Chandel to file a First Appeal on 10 January 2024, alleging that the information was incomplete, false, and misleading. But on 2 February 2024, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the CPIO’s reply.
Dissatisfied, Mr. Chandel moved the CIC with a Second Appeal on 12 April 2024.
Before the CIC, Manoj Tiwari, Assistant Registrar, argued that the matter was sub judice before the High Court and hence, the information was withheld.
The CIC was unimpressed. After hearing both sides and reviewing records, it observed that:
- The CPIO’s reply was indeed evasive and misleading.
- No justification was offered under Section 8 or Section 9 of the RTI Act for non-disclosure.
- Merely being sub judice is not a valid ground for refusal under the RTI Act.
The Commission cited precedents—Mr. Ashu vs. CPIO/Sr. Supdt of Posts, Department of Posts and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. R.K. Jain—reiterating that only information expressly prohibited from disclosure by a court or tribunal, or disclosure that may amount to contempt of court, can be exempted.
During my tenure as Director, NIPER Mohali routinely consulted its panel of 4–5 lawyers on legal matters. In a case as straightforward as this—where an employee is asking for records concerning his own appointment—there is little reason to withhold information unless there is something to hide.
One cannot ignore the context: Manoj Tiwari himself was appointed during the controversial tenure of Dr. K.K. Bhutani, whose period as Director was marred by questionable recruitment practices. The reluctance to share documents with the Deputy Registrar may have less to do with legal constraints and more with protecting opaque administrative decisions.
If the country’s apex transparency body states that the CPIO of NIPER Mohali has misled its own Deputy Registrar—an officer senior to the CPIO—it raises serious concerns about what lies buried in the institute’s files, and the difficulty an ordinary citizen might face in uncovering the truth.
