You are the PIO of a Public University. A student-led RTI seeks the personal-leave record of a Vice Chancellor whose attendance has been allegedly irregular. The data is in the establishment file; releasing it requires touching personal-information clauses under Section 8(1)(j). The VC asks you informally not to share. The CIC’s recent rulings favour disclosure where larger public interest is shown. Media is following the story. The Chancellor’s office has asked for a status update. What course of action would you take? Justify with the values involved.

Dilemma: Personal-information privacy of the Vice Chancellor under Section 8(1)(j) versus accountability of a public-office holder whose alleged irregular attendance affects university functioning and student interests.

Stakeholders: Student RTI applicant and the wider student body; the VC (privacy, reputation); the Chancellor and the State's University Governance department; faculty and administrative staff; the media; future RTI applicants relying on precedent.

Options: (a) deny under Section 8(1)(j) — protects the VC personally but fails the public-interest override and contradicts Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (2012) read narrowly; (b) release the entire establishment file — Puttaswamy (2017) privacy violation, exposes medical reasons, sets a reckless precedent; (c) issue a Section 11 third-party notice to the VC, decide under the public-interest override, disclose only the attendance summary (dates, durations) while redacting medical or other strictly personal reasons, and pass a written reasoned order — the hard right.

Decision: Option (c). Reasons — Puttaswamy (2017) balanced with public-office accountability (privacy proportionality); Nolan principles of openness and accountability; and reduced expectation of privacy for a public office holder on the discharge of public duties (constitutional morality).

Safeguard: Note-sheet of reasoning citing Section 8(1)(j), Section 11 and Girish Deshpande (2012); written appeal-rights communicated to both the VC and the student applicant within the statutory window; copy the reasoned order to the CIC for institutional symmetry; ensure consistent application of the same test to future similar requests; do not consult the Chancellor's office until the order is passed, to preserve PIO autonomy under RTI Section 5; commit the office to publishing attendance summaries proactively under Section 4 going forward.