Understanding Information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act

Table of Contents

1. What is ‘Information’?
2. What is not ‘Information’?

Check out Taxmann's PIO's Guide to RTI which is a comprehensive guide to the Right to Information Act, 2005, is based on over 100,000 orders from the Central Information Commission and key court rulings, categorised for ease of reference. It provides insights into the RTI Act's nuances, implementation, and strategies to counteract misuse. This book is tailored for government officials, lawyers, information commissioners, and citizens.

A PIO must understand the concept of ‘Information’ as the RTI Act vests the power to a citizen to seek the material that is covered under the ambit of the term ‘information’. If anything beyond what is defined as ‘information’ is demanded, the application is not maintainable under the Act.

1. What is ‘Information’?

The Act empowers the Citizen to obtain ‘information’ which has been defined in section 2(f) as, “any material in any form including:

• records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers,
• samples, models,
• data material held in any electronic form, and
• information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.”

Thus, the scope of the term ‘information’ is very wide and includes not only records in practically all possible forms of storage encompassing digital and physical data. Information not only includes the file notings, but also samples, models, videos and photographs.

1.a The effect of the provisions and scheme of the RTI Act is to divide “information” into three categories. They are:

(i) Information which promotes transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, disclosure of which may also help in containing or discouraging corruption [enumerated in Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 4(1) of the RTI Act.

(ii) Other information held by public authority [that is, all information other than those falling under Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 4(1) of the RTI Act].

(iii) Information which is not held by or under the control of any public authority and which cannot be accessed by a public authority under any law for the time being in force.

Information under the third category does not fall within the scope of the RTI Act. In regard to the information falling under the first category, there is also a special responsibility upon the public authorities to suo motu publish and disseminate such information so that they will be easily and readily accessible to the public without any need to access them by having recourse to Section 6 of the RTI Act. There is no such obligation to publish and disseminate the other information which falls under the second category. [The SPIO and DSP and Anr v. SIC and Anr., WP (C). No. 5274/2020; 17.03.2021, HC Kerala].

1.1 Record

As per section 2(i) of the Act, ‘record’ includes,

(a) any document, manuscript and file;

(b) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document; and

(c) any other material produced by a computer or any other device.

1.2 Information should be ‘held’

Information which is held by a Public Authority can alone be provided to an applicant. Information which is already in the Public domain has often been claimed as not being held by the Public authority.

1.2.a The said expression “held by or under the control of any public authority” used in section 2(j) of the RTI Act deserves a wider and a more meaningful interpretation. The expression “Hold” is defined in the Black’s Law dictionary, 6th Edition, inter alia, in the same way as “to keep” i.e. to retain, to maintain possession of, or authority over. [Registrar of Companies v. Dharmendra kumar Garg, WP(C) No. 11271/2009; 1.06.2012, HC Delhi].

1.2.b The words ‘held by’ or ‘under the control of’ u/s 2(j) will include not only information under the legal control of the public authority but also all such information which is otherwise received or used or consciously retained by the public authority in the course of its functions and its official capacity. There are any number of examples where there is no legal obligation to provide information to public authorities, but where such information is provided, the same would be accessible under the Act. For example, registration of births, deaths, marriages, applications for election photo identity cards, ration cards, pan cards etc. [Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, LPA No. 501/2009; 12.01.2010, HC Delhi].

1.2.c Freedom of Information Act – Delhi High Court in Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, LPA No. 501/2009 judgment dated 12.01.2010 referred to Philip Coppel’s work ‘Information Rights’ (2nd Edition, Thomson, Sweet & Maxwell 2007) interpreting the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 2000 (United Kingdom). “Held” suggests a relationship between a public authority and the information akin to that of ownership or bailment of goods… information is “held” by a public authority if it is held by the authority otherwise than on behalf of another person, or if it is held by another person on behalf of the authority. The term ‘held’ does not include following information –

1. That is, without request or arrangement, sent to or deposited with a public authority which does not hold itself out as willing to receive it and which does not subsequently use it;
2. That is accidentally left with a public authority;
3. That just passes through a public authority;
4. That ‘belongs’ to an employee or officer of a public authority but which is brought by that employee or officer onto the public authority’s premises.

1.2.d It is important to ensure that the desired information are available with a public authority. No attempt should be made to seek information on the basis of presumption about the availability of information, as has been done in the instant case. [5293/IC(A)/2010].

1.2.e The wording of Section 2(j) …. clearly demarcates the boundary between an information held or under the control of the public authority and, an information not so held, or under the control of that public authority who suo-motu places that information in public domain. It is only the former which shall be “accessible under this Act” viz. the RTI Act and, not the latter. This latter category of information forms the burden of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 4 of this Act. [CIC/AT/A/2007/00112].

1.2.f Information held – Section 2(j), read with provisions of Section 4(1), makes it comprehensively clear that RTI Act envisions two classes of information one, which public authority holds and, has not yet – offered to disclose either free or through a certain level of price and, second, information in regard to which the previous action has not been taken. RTI Act applies only to the latter category and not to the former. [CIC/SM/A/2009/001883AT].

1.2.g Holding exclusively – The expression ‘held by’ or ‘under the control of any public authority’, in relation to ‘information’, means that information which is held by the public authority under its control to the exclusion of others. It cannot mean that information which the public authority has already ‘let go’, i.e. shared generally with the citizens, and also that information, in respect of which there is a statutory mechanism evolved, (independent of the RTI Act) which obliges the public authority to share the same with the citizenry by following the prescribed procedure, and upon fulfillment of the prescribed conditions. This is so, because in respect of such information, which the public authority is statutorily obliged to disseminate, it cannot be said that the public authority ‘holds’ or ‘controls’ the same. There is no exclusivity in such holding or control. In fact, the control vests in the seeker of the information who has only to operate the statutorily prescribed mechanism to access the information. It is not this kind of information, which appears to fall within the meaning of the expression ‘right to information’, as the information in relation to which the ‘right to information’ is specifically conferred by the RTI Act is that information which “is held by or under the control of any public authority”. [Registrar of Companies v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg, WP(C) No. 11271/2009; 01.06.2012, HC Delhi].

1.2.h I respectfully disagree with this conclusion. Section 2(j) states: “right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority… The word used in the provision is ‘or’ and not ‘and’. Information may be sought either from the public authority holding the information or the public authority having control over the information. Parliament has deliberately drawn this distinction as in some cases these two public authorities may be two entirely different entities. Therefore, if a public authority holds the information, it must provide the same to the RTI Applicant in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. It is not at all necessary for that public authority to control that information as well. In the present case, the Trial Court may have control over the record, but the CBI is the public authority holding the SP report. Therefore, the SP Report can be sought from the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise or from the Trial Court. Since the Appellant has sought it from the Commissionerate the public authority holding the information must provide the same. [Dissenting note in a majority decision Bench comprising of Shri AN Tiwari, Shri Satyananda Mishra and Shri Shailesh Gandhi – C. Seetharamaiah v. Commissionerate of Customs and Central Excise (CBI as third party), CIC/AT/A/2008/01238; 07.06.2010].

1.2.i The expression ‘held’ or ‘under the control of’ used in section 2(j) of the Act are significant. These expressions mean that an information can be said to be under the control of a public authority only when such public authority holds that information authoritatively and legitimately. Information which a public authority might receive casually or, which it had returned to its point of origin for supplying omissions, will not qualify to be ‘held’ or ‘under the control of’ the public authority. [CIC/AT/A/2007/00327].

1.2.j Time period – Holding of information is not time-specific and as such even though the information is held for a very short period, nevertheless while the information is in a state of being ‘held’ it is ‘information’ for the time it is known to be held by the public authority through any of its officers or agents, within the meaning of section 2(f) and is covered by the right conferred on a citizen u/s 3 of the Act. It is immaterial as to whether the information is held by a lowly functionary or by the highest functionary. Also immaterial for the purpose of definition of information is the manner of the creation of the document. A document or a paper casually created as some sort out of an aide-memoire. E.g. “cause list”- is as much information u/s 2(f) as any other document or material under the control of the public authority. [CIC/WB/A/2006/00839 & 00900 and CIC/WB/A/2007/01118 Full Bench].

1.3 Information with private bodies

Certain data available with a private organisation can be legally accessed by a government organisation under a law in force.

1.3.a The definition includes even the information available with private bodies, which can be accessed by a Public Authority. There can be a situation where the public authority does not possess the information sought in an RTI application relating to a private body which the public authority can have access to under any law. In such a condition, the public authority would be required to obtain the information from the private body and provide it to the applicant after testing it against the exemption clauses of section 8(1) and following the procedure of section 11 relating to third party information. [CIC/WB/A/2006/00314].

1.4 File notings

1.4.a Doubts were raised in certain quarters whether file notings are to be disclosed under RTI as the definition of information u/s 2(f) does not specifically mention it. In the landmark Satyapal Case, the division bench of CIC held that in terms of section 2(i), a record includes a file and in terms of Section 2(j) right to information extends to accessibility to a record. Thus, a combined reading of section 2(f), 2(i) & 2(j) would indicate that a citizen has the right of access to a file of which the file notings are an integral part. [IC(PB)/A-1/CIC/2006].

1.4.b The CIC referred to the definition of the word ‘file’ as contained in the Manual of Office Procedure. Section 27 of Chapter II: ‘Definitions’ clearly states, ‘File means a collection of papers on a specific subject matter assigned a file number and consisting of one or more of the following parts:

(a) Correspondence;

(b) Notes;

(c) Appendix to Correspondence and

(d) Appendix to Notes.

This would imply that ‘notings’ are an inextricable part of a record as defined u/s 2(f) and further defined u/s 2(i)(a) of the Act unless it had been specifically exempted. Without that, by excluding ‘notings’ from a file, the DoPT would be going against their own Manual and established procedure mandated by them. [CIC/WB/C/2007/00080]. Vide Circular No. 1/20/2009-IR dated 23rd June, 2009, the DoPT clarified that file noting can be disclosed except those exempt from disclosure u/s 8 of the Act.

1.4.c There is a mention in the file that this extension has been given on the basis of the minutes dated 29.06.2005 issued by the concerned Minister. The minutes given by the Minister is also part of the file noting which should be supplied to the appellant. [PBA/07/751].

1.4.d While, the definition of record in Section 2(i) includes a “file”. Having regard to the above, there can be no doubt that file notings and opinions of the JAG branch are information, to which, a person taking recourse to the RTI Act can have access provided it is available with the concerned public authority. [UoI v. Col V K Shad WP(C) 499/2012; 09.11.2012, HC Delhi].

1.4.e File notings are disclosable to the information seekers unless they are non-disclosable under any specific provision of the RTI Act. [Shri G.S. Sandhu v. UPSC, CIC/SM/A/2011/001771; 01.05.2013].

1.4.f Action taken – Provide file notings relating to registration of M/s Infomerics Valuation and Rating Pvt. Ltd from the date of the order dated 19.2.2013 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of SEBI v. M/s Infomerics Valuation and Rating Pvt. Ltd. severing third party information. [Ms Pooja Malik v. SEBI, in CIC/MP/A/2015/001709; 18.03.2016].

1.4.g Implications of filed notings – The file notings obtained under the RTI Act, 2005 which contain statements about obligation of the then State of Andhra Pradesh to pay the dues of the petitioners are ‘acknowledgements of liability’ u/s 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and that they relate to a present subsisting liability and indicate the existence of jural relationship between the parties. [M/s. Agni Aviation Consultants v. WP No. 1135/2016, 21.04.2020; HC Telangana].

1.5 Sample and Model

The Act gives the authority to inspect and take a certified sample. A citizen can even seek a model of an actual object on payment of prescribed fee.

1.5.a Sample of materials used – An information seeker is free to seek and obtain sample of materials used in any civil or electrical works, so as to determine the quality of work completed by the contractors, in terms of the standards prescribed in the contract between the parties. [3094/IC(A)/2008].

1.5.b Sending samples to laboratory – The only matter in which the request of appellant has been refused is his request to send samples of material to Siri Ram Institute of Testing for quality, which he has made to Executive Engineer in a letter of 30.1.06 on which Chief Engineer in his letter to both Executive Engineers on 13.2.06 has rightly directed that whereas a person can indeed obtain certified sample of materials u/s 2(j)(iii), there is no provision to handover such samples to a testing laboratory. It was open to appellant to have taken the sample for testing to any laboratory of his choice. It is not open to him, however, to ask the public authority to do so. [CIC/WB/A/2006/00290-291].

1.5.c Obtaining samples for testing – The Appellant is, however, allowed to obtain samples of the supplies of CG12 Rev 1 vinyl flooring, under provisions of Section 2(j)(iii) of the Act, which the Appellant may get tested from an independent expert on his own. [CIC/WB/C/2007/00224].

1.5.d Sample of road – Appellant submitted that he had asked for a sample of the road for core testing by him as it is his belief that sub- standard material was used in constructing the Road. CIC directed to provide a realistic estimate (indicating the complete breakup) of money that needs to be deposited by the Appellant before the sample is handed over to the Appellant within ten days of receipt of the amount from the Appellant. The PIO is also directed to allow the Appellant to inspect the records relating to the construction of road and to provide him with attested copies of documents sought by him, free of cost upto 50 pages. [Shri Deepak Yadav v. Public Works Department, CIC/AD/A/2012/000740; 26.03.2012].

1.5.e The samples are ‘information’ to which the appellant is entitled u/s 2 (j)…..The samples are retained till the proceedings reach a finality cannot be totally disregarded in as much as an eventuality may arise when the AA may like to inspect these samples or have fresh tests conduct in regard thereto. Hence, to direct the Customs Department to supply the whole of samples to the appellant may not be expedient. A balance, therefore, needs to be struck in this regard. In the circumstances, the proper course of action appears to be to direct Commissioner of Customs (I&G), New Delhi, to apply the principle of severability u/s 10(1) of the RTI Act by way of retaining part of the samples for the purposes of pending adjudication proceedings and supplying another part to the appellant. [CIC/AT/A/2007/01377/LS].

1.6 Certified Copies

A “Certified copy” is a copy of a document or record, signed or certified as a true copy by the officer to whose custody original is entrusted. The PIO has to provide certified copies of documents and certified samples of materials if desired by an applicant as the RTI Act provides for the same [section 2(j)].

Certified copies are admissible as proof in courts of law u/s 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, and therefore, it is necessary that adequate care and caution is exercised before, a PIO decides to provide the certified copies of documents. Section 76 of the IE Act describes the officer competent to issue a certified copy as the one ‘… who in the ordinary course of official duty is authorized to deliver such copies …’ It follows from it that certified copies of a document can be issued only by an officer who is in control of that information/document in course of his official duty which by inference should be a duty cast on him through a statute, rule or regulation. If such an officer has given photocopies of the documents which he officially holds to another public authority, the latter will not qualify to be the holder of the information ‘by the ordinary course of official duty’, and thus will not be qualified to issue certified copies of such received documents to a requester.

Vide OM No. 10/1/2013-JR dated 06.10.2015, the DoPT has directed that wherever the applicant has requested for ‘certified copies’ of the documents or records, the CPIO should endorse on the document “True copy of the document/record supplied under RTI Act”, sign the document with date, above a seal containing name of the officer, CPIO and name of public authority. In case the documents to be certified and supplied is large in number, information on RTI application should be supplied by a designated PIO but the certification of the documents, if need be, could be done by an other junior gazetted officer.

1.6.a It is necessary to draw a distinction between the original or the primary and, the secondary or the incidental, holder of the information within Section 2(j). [CIC/AT/A/2009/000584].

1.6.b Since the original report is with the Police, the CPIO and the AA were correct in the decision taken by them as in the absence of the original, no certified copy can be given. However, if the appellant desires, he may apply for an uncertified copy of the same. [PBA/06/206].

1.6.c The complainant has inter alia requested the Commission to recommend/direct the Govt. so that documents received under RTI suo-motu become evidence before the Court of law. There are a number of cases decided by the Supreme Court and High Courts wherein Courts have relied upon documents procured from Public Authorities in deciding the cases. The rule which gets deduced from the practice is “The documents which are admissible and relevant is given due cognizance by the competent courts and courts here never raised this question that documents procured from a public authority through RTI application is not admissible.” [CIC/SG/A/2009/000206].

1.6.d The stand taken by the respondent that the Act does not contemplate issue of certified copies of documents or records cannot be sustained. Likewise, I also find no merit or force in the contention of the respondents that grant of certified copies may give authenticity to the documents which may not be genuine or even fabricated. In the event of an applicant’s request for information being granted all that the Public Information Officer would have to do is to certify that the copy is one issued under the RTI Act, 2005. He is not called upon to certify that it is a copy of a genuine document. [John Numpeli (Junior) v. Office of The Town Planning Officer, Cochin Corporation, WP(C) No. 31947/2013; 31.01.2014, HC Kerala].

1.6.e The information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to. [Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat and Anr., CA No (S). 1966-1967 of 2020; 04.03.2020, SC].

1.7 Cost of certification

Hypothetically, an appellant may desire a few thousand certified copies of documents which may be practically not possible to provide.

1.8 Video and photographs

1.8.a Provide a copy of the video of Trade Test and copy of photograph taken during the test and also a copy of answer sheet of the Appellant within 3 weeks time on receipt of this order. [CIC/SS/A/2010/000453].

1.8.b Whether the ATM in question had videography facility and, if yes, video clipping may be provided to the appellant if available. [CIC/SM/A/2009/000735/LS].

1.8.c The Commission directs the respondents to check the presence of the appellant in the CCTV footage of 23.8.2013 and provide the footage where she figures upon payment of fees prescribed. [Ms. Reena Richard v. SBI, CIC/MP/A/2014/000236; 28.11.2014].

1.8.d The Commission has not been in favour of unconditional provision of footage of CCTV cameras to RTI applicants as it could endanger the security of the premises, where those cameras are installed. However, the Commission has directed provision of limited CCTV footage in cases where it pertained to the applicant himself. [Md. Shakeel Ahmad v. CPIO, Archaeological Survey of India, CIC/SH/A/2015/001336; 30.08.2016].

2. What is not ‘Information’?

There are certain areas which are beyond the scope of the term Information. Some illustrative examples are given below:

2.1 Opinion and Advice

Only information as available in the form of records and documents which are held by or under the control of a public authority can constitute information to which a citizen has right to access. This Act does not provide for seeking information which are not recorded and therefore cannot be deemed to have been ‘held’ by the public authority.

2.1.a It is also not required to provide ‘advice’ or ‘opinion’ to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ to an applicant. The reference to ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ in the definition of ‘information’ in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act. [CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay CA No. 6454/2011; 09.08.2011, SC].

2.1.b The queries raised by the appellant in his RTI application are more in the nature of seeking advice and clarification whereas under the provisions of the RTI Act, only information as is held by the Respondent in material form can be provided. The Respondent are not expected to create information or to give advise. The information sought by the Appellant therefore does not qualify as information as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. [Govind Mittal v. CPIO, National Highway Authority of India, CIC/SS/A/2012/003439; 29.08.2013].

2.1.c An applicant u/s 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed. [Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer and Ors., SLP (C) No. 34868/2009; 04.01.2010, SC].

2.1.d Opinions which are on record certainly have to be given, but the PIO cannot be expected to give his opinion on matters under RTI. [CIC/ WB/A/2008/00493/SG/ 0344, CIC/WB/A/2006/00383].

2.1.e It is important to note that the expressions “opinions” and “advices” in this section refer to opinions, advices which form part of material such as advices and opinion present on files, documents records and so on. It would be wholly incorrect to read these expressions to mean that an information-seeker can demand from a public authority its opinion and seek its advice in a matter of the petitioner’s interest. Nothing which is intangible such as interpretations, opinions, advices, explanations, reasons can be said to be included in the definition of information in Section 2(f). [CIC/AT/A/2007/00940]. Similar view was taken in CIC/AT/A/2006/00446, CIC/AT/A/2006/00045.

2.1.f “Information”, therefore, can be something that is available in a material form and is retrievable from the official records. It cannot be something that is not a part of the record. An “opinion” or an “advice” which is not recorded cannot, therefore, be treated as “information” within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Similarly, the CPIO cannot either confirm or deny some perception of the appellant, which he has about a particular set of information. [CIC/WB/A/2009/000381].

2.1.g The words, “opinions” and “advices” in Section 2(f) only meant that subject to the exemptions of Section 8(1) and Section 9, opinions and advices available on the files and records of a public authority shall be liable for disclosure. It cannot be interpreted to mean that all public authorities shall act as advisors to RTI-petitioners. [CIC/AT/A/2007/01196].

2.1.h Any ‘opinion’ to be provided must be recorded opinion. By the same argument, if there is no recorded opinion on a particular subject on which information has been sought, the CPIO is required to inform the applicant that there is no such record. [CIC/WB/A/2007/00329].

2.2 Clarification/Reason/Explanation

The reasons available on record should be provided and the PIO is not expected to post facto create reasons.

2.2.a Reason or justification – 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 expect 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….. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information. [Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) v. The Goa SIC and Anr., WP(C) No. 419/2007; 03.04.2008, HC Bombay].

2.2.b A public authority is not obliged to answer any query regarding why it did not perform its function in a given manner. [CIC/AT/A/2009/000657].

2.2.c While appellant shall be entitled to receive the information as it is on record, it is not his right to demand that the public authority explain to him as to why no action was taken on his appeal petition, or why action was taken in a particular way and, not another. [CIC/ SM/A/2010/000467AT].

2.2.d The appellant is seeking clarification regarding validity of a course conducted by IGNOU for the purpose of career advancement scheme. This can be clarified either by UGC or IGNOU. They did not write to each other on this question. During the hearing of second appeal, the PIO states that clarifications could not be provided under the RTI Act. The Commission considers this as a policy deficit in the public authority exposed by such RTI applications. The RTI Act mandates UGC u/s 4(1)(c) & (d) to voluntarily disclose such aspects of their educational policy to the people affected including the appellant in this case. In fact, the UGC has to understand the doubts of such students or parents and recognize the need for clarification arising out of such RTI applications and prepare the FAQs accordingly. The UGC should entrust a team to scrutinize such requirements out of the RTI applications and continuously increase the number of clarifications under FAQs. The increase in the number of RTI applications seeking such clarifications reflect on the public authority leading to an inference that the UGC is not properly communicating to the people about the validity of courses and degrees. The RTI Act has provided a tool to the people to find out such clarifications. Instead of physically approaching or telephonically asking the applicant has paid ` 10 in the form of RTI fee, creating an obligation on the public authority to respond. Hence, the Commission directs the respondent authority not to refuse to give clarifications. If not, the commission would be compelled to initiate penal proceedings and also direct the public authority to pay compensation to the appellants in similar circumstances because appellant’s RTI request was a necessity arising out of non-performance of its duty u/s 4(1)(c) & (d) of RTI Act. Though section 4 is not directly enforceable by the Commission, the information sought was to be voluntarily disclosed; the RTI application and this appeal demand the CIC to take necessary action to secure access to implement the RTI Act. The information unsought is not prohibited by any exemption. Even if appears to be a clarification which could be denied under first part of Section 2(f), it has to be given under second part of Section 2(f) as UGC Act provided access to that information held by UGC concerning the Universities- both public and private. [Ram Kishan Sharma v. PIO, UGC, CIC/CC/A/2014/001770-SA; 27.09.2016].

2.2.e The appellant has sought very wide and general information which does not relate to only one public authority but multiple public authorities. The subject matter of the information sought are general in nature which requires identification of appropriate documents and furnishing information after analysing large no. of documents. Such an activity cannot be expected from the CPIO requiring him to make judgments on the basis of unspecified documents. The CPIO is not obliged to provide clarification and interpretation of the documents to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. This sort of queries seeking clarification from the CPIO regarding various aspects of import of crude oil by the oil companies is not covered within the definition of ‘information’ u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. [Omprakash Kashiram v. The Commissioner of Customs (Import-II), CIC/CCUM1/A/2019/104378; 09.12.2020].

2.2.f Appellant believes that RTI Act entitles him to demand explanations, reasons and elucidations from a public authority. For this, he has cited section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act which enjoins public authority to provide reasons for administrative and quasi-judicial decisions. From this to infer that an applicant acquires the right to interrogate a public authority about a decision it made or one that it did not make, would be little overstretched. This provision enjoins a public authority that whenever an administrative or quasi judicial decision is made the reasons for those decisions would be made known to the person these concerned. It would be entirely misconceived to stretch the provision of section 4(1) (d) to imply that a public authority may be required to furnish, post facto or at any point in time subsequent to the making of the decision, reasons for quasi judicial or administrative decisions that may be made. The provisions of section 4(1) of the RTI Act are more in the nature of directive principles for better governance and higher transparency. To quote these as binding obligations on the public authority enforceable under the provisions of the act would be contrary to the intent and the purpose of the Act. [CIC/AT/A/2007/01298, CIC/AT/A/2009/000657].

2.2.g No information-seeker can demand from a public authority explanations, reasons, interpretation, etc. What the appellant is seeking is an interpretation of Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act, which lies manifestly beyond the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. [CIC/AT/A/2007/00940].

2.2.h The CPIO has understandably declined to enter into an exchange with him about why Trustees did not take a certain decision, or the authority through which certain Rules were amended. It would be incorrect on the part of the CPIO to conjecture about those situations as depicted by the appellant. This matter being so old, is also partly responsible for absence of the material appellant is seeking. [CIC/SM/A/2010/000458AT].

2.2.i A citizen can seek only information, which is available with the public authority in material form leaving no provision to seek clarification by raising queries. It is not open to an applicant to ask, in the guise of seeking information, questions to the public authorities about the nature and quality of their actions. It may be noted that the public authority is not bound to answer queries like why and what and under what circumstances to an applicant. [PBA/07/137].

2.2.j A perusal of the queries leaves one in no doubt that they were couched in a language which amounted to demanding explanations and reasons about certain points which the appellant had incorporated in these queries. [CIC/AT/A/2007/01331].

2.2.k It would be a fallacy to conclude that all public authorities are obliged to provide post facto reasons in all administrative and quasi-judicial matters previously decided as it would virtually amount to asking the present incumbent to read the mind of that authority which passed or took the decision, at an earlier point of time. [CIC/AT/A/2007/01298].

2.2.l The information solicited by the appellant is, no doubt, unusual. He has asked not for any existing information, but for reasons for inaction on, what the appellant has mentioned, a newspaper report. I am afraid it is not open for any applicant to demand the explanation of a public authority for its alleged inaction on a newspaper report. [CIC/AT/A/2007/00582].

2.2.m The RTI Act clearly defines the information which can be solicited through a proper RTI request and this does not include explanations, reasons and decisions. The queries here are not request for information, but demands for explanations and reasons from the public authority. [CIC/AT/A/2007/00191, CIC/AT/A/2007/00357, CIC/AT/A/2007/00310].

2.2.n The Commission notes that the appellant herein wishes to interrogate the respondents, in the guise of seeking specific information under the provisions of the RTI Act, about the reasons for their starting criminal proceedings against him. He cannot be authorized to do so. [CIC/AT/A/2007/01066].

2.2.o It needs to be stated that it is not open to a petitioner to seek from respondents their reaction on implementation of a Court order no matter how valid or legitimate be the petitioner’s own case. The public authority as a litigant has a right to take position in a given case, for which it is answerable only to the Courts. The public authority is not obliged to reveal its action or inaction on Court orders, if any, to an applicant, even when such applicant is making this petition under the RTI Act. [CIC/AT/A/2007/00145].

2.2.p Appellant seems to have a certain idea about the source of the power of the DGCEI and the jurisdictional Commissioners in the matter of issue of show cause notices and adjudication. This idea apparently is not in conformity with the impression that the central excise officers have in the same matter. RTI is not a forum where the correctness of the respective positions can be debated and established. Appellant’s RTI-query was well beyond the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as what he was seeking was more elucidation and explanation rather than any specific information – material in any form. [CIC/AT/A/2010/000039].

2.2.q In simple words, information must exist in the form of a record or sample or as data in electronic form. The Act nowhere states that if a question is framed it would not be replied. [CIC/SG/A/2010/001035/7966].

2.3 Interpretation or Legal Opinion

RTI Act has no scope for a petitioner establishing a dialogue with the public authority regarding what is the interpretation of a given set of Rules or the own ideas, interpretations or surmises of the PIO.

2.3.a CPIO cannot interpret the orders of the Supreme Court in any particular case. [CIC/WB/A/2006/00610].

2.3.b If there is any specific recorded opinion sought that is in material form, with regard to any conduct by any specific justice, appellant Shri Sharma was free to ask for such a record. On the other hand, appellant’s argument before us that DNA Rules must cover the problem that he has projected holds no weight because these very rules are available to him as much as they are to any CPIO. Interpreting those rules, therefore, becomes a matter of legal opinion, which under the law, as unambiguously defined above, the CPIO is not authorized to provide. [CIC/WB/A/2009/0000151].

2.3.c There was the great danger in CPIO providing to the appellant an information gleaning it from files and documents and this was that the CPIO made over in interpreting the information and thereby run into charges of providing to the appellant false or incorrect information. [CIC/AT/A/2010/000622].

2.3.d The appellant is not happy with the reply and wants the PIO to give a specific provision of the law which would apply to his property. He is effectively seeking an interpretation of the law from the PIO, which is not ‘information’ as defined under the Act. [CIC/WB/A/2008/01329/SG/0715].

2.3.e To expect that a public authority would identify the extracts of the circular relevant to the appellant’s RTI queries for the benefit of appellant would amount to giving to him the public authority’s interpretation of Income Tax Laws/instructions which the appellant is not authorized to receive, nor is the respondent obliged to provide, under the provisions of the RTI Act. [CIC/AT/A/2007/01074].

2.3.f If any legal opinion has been obtained by the public authority which is the matter of record, it is covered under the definition of information. Whether it can be provided is a question which the PIO has to examine.