Reasons for not calling for the interview by the IIM

The appellant asked the IIM Bangalore to provide the exact and specific reasons regarding why he was not called for the interview for PhD programme. The PIO informed that the Pre-Pi score of the appellant was lower than the cut-off required for the CFI process under the NC-OBC category. The appellant submitted before the CIC that the parameters of shortlisting the candidates had not been provided by the PIO. Moreover, the reasons for not calling him for the interview had also not provided till date. The CIC held that the appellant has sought reasons, which does not fall within the definition of “information” as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.

Comments

The Hon’ble Bombay High court at Goa in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto vs. Goa State Information Commission (W.P. No. 419 of 2007, decision dated 03.04.2008), held that the definition of information cannot include within its fold answers to the question "why" which would be same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The public information authorities cannot be expected to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.

Citation: Anshul Bisen v. Indian Institute of Management–Bangalore, Second Appeal No. CIC/IIMBL/A/2024/631898; Date of Decision: 10.10.2025

Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com