CIC directs disclosure of NLU-Delhi faculty’s comments on alleged live-in relation

In a rather bizarre order, the Central Information Commission has directed the CPIO of National Law University Delhi to disclose the comments made by two faculty members of the university in response to allegations that they were in a “living in” relationship..The RTI request in itself, seems like something out of an Ekta Kapoor serial..Back in 2013, the step-brother of the ex-wife of one of the faculty members filed an RTI seeking action against said teacher on the ground that the teacher was in a live-in relationship “amounting to adultery and bigamy” with another faculty at the university..The CPIO of the university replied to the query within a month after a three-member in-house enquiry committee was set up to look into the matter. The committee went on to find nothing amiss, and ruled that no action was required to be taken against the faculty members..However, the applicant did not stop there. He went on to file an appeal seeking more information on the alleged relationship. In the appeal, he sought access to copies of the letters the two faculty members submitted to the committee. These letters were required to contain their comments on the allegations..And the Information Commissioner has now directed the disclosure of these letters to the appellant..What makes the order hard to believe is the fact that the ex-wife of faculty member in question wrote a letter to the Vice-Chancellor of the university, requesting that her step-brother’s queries not be entertained. The letter also clearly states that marital relations between her and the faculty had ceased and that the information sought for is personal in nature and ought not be disclosed without her consent..Despite this request, the CIC has thrown caution to the wind and held that “public interest” outweighs the right to privacy. Somehow, it has arrived at the conclusion that disclosure will somehow benefit all parties concerned..“The Commission feels that if public authority hides this information it might convey wrongful impression that some unwanted personal affairs are being covered up…Hence as per section 8(2) Commission finds that this information has to be given in larger public interest to secure the reputation of an institute of justice education like…besides in the best interest of two professors and sister of appellant.”.What is heartening for the faculty members is the fact that the letters don’t actually contain any information. They chose not to comment on the scandal. The order states,.“Regarding request for ‘comments’ of two professors, it is clear that they made no comments at all as they claimed to have no comments to make… Disclosure of this ‘no comment’ of the two faculty members cannot result in any invasion of their privacy.”.And this fact renders the disclosure an exercise in pointlessness, especially since one of the faculty members had left the university a couple of years ago. Nevertheless, the IC has chosen to entertain behaviour bordering on voyeurism, even as he waxes eloquent about curbing frivolous RTI queries..“Whether from employees or outsiders, the institute should not be harassed with multiple RTI questions on frivolous grounds…The best interest of a prestigious law university, in so far as its law faculty is concerned, lies in the fact that people should not discuss teachers for wrong reasons..Such unfounded and unjustified allegations provoke rumour mongers to work overtime, who need to be silenced by disclosure. Best way of countering rumours is publicising truthful information.”