• §2(h) — UGC, AICTE, NMC, CBSE, NCTE, state Universities, affiliated colleges (aided) all are public authorities.
• §8(1)(j) — student / faculty personal data.
• §8(1)(e) — fiduciary protection for examination-adjacent records (narrowed temporally).
• §4(1)(b)(xii) — scholarship beneficiary lists.
• Right to Education Act, 2009 + rules — SMC and school records public.

1. Step 1. Classify — institutional vs individual.
2. Step 2. Institutional: default to disclosure under §4.
3. Step 3. Individual: self-data disclose; third-party with §11 + §10 + §8(2) balancing.
4. Step 4. Academic-integrity questions — check temporal (live cycle exempt; post-cycle disclosable).
5. Step 5. Speaking reply with institutional/regulatory grounding.

The RTI seeks the status of scholarship application No. XXX for academic year 2025-26. This is own-file disclosure.

Status: [approved / pending / rejected / disbursed]
Sanctioning date: DD-MM-YYYY
PFMS UTR / Bank transfer reference: [UTR]
Reason for any delay: [if applicable]
Nodal officer: [name, designation]
Grievance contact: [NSP / state dept]

Fee: no additional fee.

The RTI seeks the UGC/AICTE/NMC approval file for [Institute Name]. This is institutional information required to be proactively disclosed under §4(1)(b).

Enclosed at Annexure A-D:
(a) Latest affiliation order
(b) Inspection report
(c) Conditions imposed, if any
(d) Compliance status

Personal data of inspectors / individual faculty redacted under §10 + §8(1)(j).

• Own scholarship delay. Disclose; see scheme delay guide.
• College-level UGC approval. Disclose.
• Admission merit list. Disclose.
• Individual student's marks in another stream. Exempt — §8(1)(j).
• Institute fee-hike justification filed with regulator. Disclose.
• NCTE recognition for a B.Ed college. Disclose.
• Fellowship disbursement record for own scholarship. Disclose.

• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 — own-exam disclosure; principle extends to own-scholarship.
• ICAI v. Shaunak Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781 — temporal protection for examination material.
• Thalappalam Service Co-op Bank v. State of Kerala (2013) 16 SCC 82 — the “public authority” test applicable to affiliated colleges and cooperative educational bodies.

• Treating all education-sector records as exam secrets.
• Denying own-scholarship information.
• Releasing third-party students' marks.
• Not checking §4(1)(b)(xii) for scholarship lists — proactive duty.
• Over-charging for institute-record photocopies.

• Publish NSP (National Scholarship Portal) data at the institute level under §4.
• Institute approvals (UGC / AICTE / NMC / NCTE) should carry a standing disclosure page on the institute's website.
• Coordinate with the registrar's office for faculty / affiliation records.
• RTE SMC minutes should be on the school notice board + website.

Q1. Can a parent RTI for their child's school records?
Yes, if the child is a minor. Adult student's data — child files directly.

Q2. Is UGC approval a public document?
Yes — institutional, required under §4.

Q3. Can another candidate's admission be disclosed?
Aggregate yes; individual data requires §11 + §8(2) balancing.

Q4. What about my own PhD thesis submitted to university?
Disclosable to self; after publication, broadly public per Delhi HC PhD theses ruling 2024.

Education-sector RTIs are citizen-friendly by design. Most institutional records are public; individual data is protected. PIOs in this sector should lean into §4 proactive disclosure — reduces caseload and builds institutional trust.

• PIO recruitment / exam playbook
• Section 8(1)(j) framework
• RTI for students — citizen side
• PIO & FAA knowledge base

• RTI Act, 2005, §§4(1)(b)(xii), 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j)
• UGC / AICTE / NMC regulations
• Aditya Bandopadhyay, Shaunak Satya, Thalappalam

Last reviewed: 21 April 2026.