The First Appellate Authority of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) disposed of an appeal filed under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, challenging the response of the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO). The appellant had sought extensive information and Action Taken Reports (ATRs) regarding the repeal of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the implementation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, recoveries from insolvency proceedings, personal guarantors, claw-back transactions, regulatory interactions, and alleged deficiencies in IBBI’s reports and governance processes. The authority held that most queries sought explanations, opinions, evaluations, policy analysis, or compilation of data that were not maintained as records by the Board. Under Sections 2(f) and 2(j) of the RTI Act, only information that exists and is held by a public authority can be provided. The order relied on judicial precedents including CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and other decisions clarifying that authorities are not required to create information or answer “why” questions under RTI. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA
7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market,
Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001
Dated: 10th March 2026
Order under section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) in respect of RTI Appeal No. ISBBI/A/E/26/00005
IN THE MATTER OF
Sundaresan …Appellant
Vs.
Central Public Information Officer
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market,
Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001 … Respondent
1. The Appellant has filed the present Appeal dated 12th February 2026, challenging the communication of the Respondent, filed under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act).
2. The Appellant has sought extensive information, primarily in the nature of action taken reports (ATRs), historical explanations, evaluative assessments, justifications, policy rationales, and performance analyses concerning: (i) repeal of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and transition to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (ii) measures taken by IBBI in relation to implementation of the IBC, including interactions with multiple regulators and authorities; (iii) data, outcomes, and effectiveness relating to recoveries from insolvency proceedings, personal and corporate guarantors, and avoidance/claw-back transactions; (iv) conduct, frequency, agenda, and minutes of meetings of the Governing Board of IBBI; (v) contents, disclosures, and alleged omissions in annual reports and quarterly bulletins of IBBI; (vi) regulatory oversight of financial service providers, lenders, auditors, guarantors, and real estate insolvencies; and (vii) suggestions, opinions, explanations, and future-oriented measures for improving recoveries and regulatory performance.
The CPIO has replied that no such ATRs, as sought by the Appellant, is available with the Board. Aggrieved with the reply, the Appellant has filed the present Appeal reiterating the information as sought in the impugned RTI application.
3. I have carefully examined the application, the response of the Respondent and the instant Appeal and find that the matter can be decided based on the material available on record. In terms of section 2(f) of the RTI Act ‘information’ means “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.” It is pertinent to mention here that the Appellant’s “right to information’ flows from section 3 of the RTI Act and the said right is subject to the provisions of the Act. Section 2(j) of the RTI Act defines the “right to information” in term of information accessible under the Act which is held by or is under the control of a public authority. Thus, if the public authority holds any information in the form of data, statistics, abstracts, etc. an applicant can have access to the same under the RTI Act subject to exemptions under section 8.
4. In view of the numerous grounds raised in the impugned Appeal, the same is disposed of as under: –
| No. | Grounds for Appeal | Decision |
| 1 | The appellant requested information on the date of repeal of SICA, 1985 and the date of commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The appellant also sought Action Taken Reports (ATR) on implementation of SICA and IBC, interactions with SEBI, Ministry of Finance, RBI, NHB, IBBI, lenders, BIFR, AAIFR and other authorities, details of institutional takeover from BIFR/AAIFR, and comprehensive data on recoveries, invocation of guarantees, claw-back actions, and related insolvency proceedings. | The information, as sought by the Appellant, is not maintained by the Board. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011] wherein it was held as under:
‘’35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information’ and `right to information’ under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the 3 exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. 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.” |
| 2 | The appellant sought ATR regarding the objectives of IBBI such as maximizing investor value, preventing unlawful acts affecting investors, ensuring implementation of Companies Act, Chartered Accountants Act, Company Secretaries Act, and coordination with MCA, Ministry of Finance, ICAI, ICSI, IBBI and RERA authorities. | |
| 3 | ATR sought regarding restatement and re-audit of accounts of entities such as DHFL and Reliance Capital, NFRA orders, adverse audit reports, AGM fraud allegations, auditor remuneration issues, suppression in audit/board/secretarial reports, claw-back actions, personal guarantor actions, lender involvement, and interactions with regulators including NHB, SEBI, MCA, ICAI, ICSI, NFRA, SFIO and ED. | |
| 4 | ATR sought regarding NHB inspection reports of DHFL for several years including 2018-19 and earlier. | |
| 5 | ATR requested on NHB’s statutory functions under Sections 14(f), 14(g), and 14(k) of the NHB Act, including regulation of housing finance institutions, research on housing development, and coordination with RERA and other agencies to prevent misuse of project funds and ensure sound real estate insolvency resolution. | |
| 6 | ATR sought on regulation of lenders and banks regarding withdrawals under RERA where Form 5 (MAHARERA) reports are based on self-certification instead of audited reports, and similar practices across other RERAs. | |
| 7 | ATR requested on issuance or refusal of reports under Sections 33(2) and 33(3) of the NHB Act, including matters relating to DHFL and Reliance Home Finance handled by Resolution Professionals and Committees of Creditors. | |
| 8 | ATR sought on suggestions for development of housing under Section 42 of the NHB Act, especially concerning stalled real estate projects, RERA provisions, and coordination with insolvency resolution mechanisms. | |
| 9. | ATR on auditors reporting on e.g. nominee directors of banks in Board of assisted units not acting or lenders not acting or lending not backed by adequate guarantees and securities exposing the banks to losses in insolvencies and also the banks competing with home buyers on such lending where the lenders knew the risks associated with such lending based on inadequate securities and inadequate guarantees. | |
| 10. | ATR on directions by NHB and RBI under Sec 30A NHB Act on advances to homebuyers etc beyond physical progress in housing project and their association with insolvency resolution. | |
| 11. | ATR on reasons for low realisations from clawing, low identification of matters for clawing, low applications for insolvencies of personal and corporate guarantors, low recoveries in insolvencies, include failure of SICA 1985 and ATR on the same e.g. finding out reasons, ATR on the same etc |
|
| 12. | ATR on mail dt 13.9.2024, 9.9.2024 from sunsun47@gmail.com on Ansal PI, fraudulent trading and audit reports etc – even inability to find out in DEACMM20250000114 where I had predicted AGM fraud and given advance information and SOPs standard operating procedures of SEBI on AGM fraud, insolvencies etc – the SOPs may be furnished |
|
| 13. | ATR on Forwarding matters for attention and necessary action of ICAI, Ministry Corporate affairs,, NFRA, ICSI etc. | |
| 14. | ATR on untrue statements in Board Reports , auditors flouting SA 720 , auditors reporting qualified reports as unqualified , secretarial auditors not reporting on violation of RERA and Companies Act , including dates on which matters were raised with Ministry Corporate Affairs , responses of the Ministry and subsequent action by SEBI — reportable under SEBI annual report laws , but not reported. |
|
| 15. | ATR on placing adverse and disclaimed audit reports at AGM and approving the same at AGM and auditors not reporting unreliable opening balances. | |
| 16. | With effect from 1.12.2019 creditors could also resort to insolvency resolution of personal guarantors. Applications do not gather steam even now. ATR in ensuring RBI mandating that lenders must invoke personal guarantees and corporate guarantors. ATRs may be offered e.g. as follows.
|
|
| 17. | ATR on mandating lenders, COC, RPs etc on personal and corporate guarantees and on clawing | |
| 18. | Recoveries in clawing till date after resolution of major cases and recoveries from personal guarantors in those cases, applications made for Clawing in those cases, dates of applications and amounts applied for, applications for initiation of insolvencies of guarantors in resolved cases, amounts applied for, dates of applications and admitted claims and unrealized amounts in each of those major cases. |
It is pertinent to note that the relevant information concerning the outcomes of insolvency resolution process is reported in the latest edition of the quarterly newsletter and the annual report of IBBI at https://ibbi.gov.in/uploads/publication/02a 71d3bab061af910f1488121c8fea1.pdf andhttps://ibbi.gov.in/uploads/publication/de2f 17cca103664da3f2c845fef35505.pdf |
| 19. | Date wise ATR in clawing since the date CIRP form 8 was mandated and ATR on clawing before the form was mandated | respectively. Since the information as “held by or under the control of any public authority” is hosted in the public domain, the CPIO is not obligated to compile information in a specific format or resolve queries/grievances under the RTI Act. In M Jameel Basha Vs. CPIO, DoPT, New Delhi – 110001 (CIC/MPERS/A/2017/158527/SD dated 16.05.2019), the CIC has observed as follows: “It may be noted that under RTI Act, CPIO is not supposed to create information or interpret/clarify/deduct information in respect of queries/clarifications. Similarly, redressal of grievance, non-compliance of rules, contesting the actions of respondent public authority and suggesting correction in government policies are outside the purview of the RTI Act.” |
| 20. | Pls inform the number of Board Meetings / governing Board meetings of IBBI, must be held in a year and are they held and if held are minutes hosted and if not held, ATR | The information pertaining to the meetings and decision taken by the Board is hosted by the IBBI at https://ibbi.gov.in/about/board-meetings . |
| 21. |
|
The request for information is in the nature of seeking advice/opinion/redressal of grievances from the Board, which is beyond the ambit of information under Section 2(1)(f) of the the RTI Act. 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) wherein it was held as follows:
“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 |
| 22. | The quarterly bulletins till for 2020 and 2021 reported on both applications for personal guarantors ‘s insolvencies and the amounts guaranteed, and the latter was less than the former However after 2021 IBBI stopped reporting amounts covered by guarantee. ATR and pls furnish information so that we know the lending included in admitted claims not covered by guarantees | |
| 23. | ATR on if details of clawing under Sec 24 SICA during the period SICA 1985 was in force was obtained from BIFR / AAIFR /RBI / Ministry Finance / Ministry Corporate Affairs to enable IBBI to know how to claw as it did not mandate form CIRP 8 before 2021 and there were no applications for clawing and thus fraudsters and personal guarantors were favoured | 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.” |
| 24. | No proposals on improving realisations from guarantors and avoidable contracts and increasing of amount claimed were noted in the agenda of governing Board meetings of IBBI. ATR and information |
|
| 25. | ATR on merely taking note of various status reports placed and not placed at IBBI meetings and not evaluating shortcomings of IBBI | |
| 26. | Till 31.3.2025 creditors realized Rs 129.40 crores from guarantors and till 30.6.2025 they realized Rs 102.78 crores and till 31.12.2024 they had realized Rs 102.78 crores. (quarterly bulletins IBBI for the said periods) and ATR. | |
| 27. | ATR on realisations from guarantors and clawing being static for some time and suppressed in annual reports of IBBI. | |
| 28. | ATRs on auditors misstating audit reports e.g. issuing disclaimer reports instead of adverse reports , auditors of e.g., auditors of 2018-19 DHFL , R Capital ( including auditors who did not issue 2018-19 report after reporting on fraud ) , Reliance Capital etc reporting matters including on fraud suppressed by earlier auditors , on Board of Directors so doing , auditors of Ansal PI and Directors and secretarial auditors etc. |
|
| 29. | The IBBI does not report on recoveries from personal guarantors which are only 0.008 % of admitted claims and that from clawing is less than 1 % and if Jaypee Land of Rs 5500 crores is excluded the percentage recovered from clawing is 0.20 % of admitted claims and these percentages are suppressed in annual reports of IBBI. ATR on improving these. | |
| 30. | Recoveries are hardly 33 % and if recoveries from guarantors and from clawing are added the percentage is also not much different. ATR on improving the same – this negative factor on performance of IBBI is suppressed in annual reports of IBBI | |
| 31. | Clawing applications rejected are not noticed to be reported. ATR | |
| 32. | IBBI has stopped reporting clawing applications disposed in 2025. ATR | |
| 33
. |
The matters are reported by IBBI in such a manner that it is almost impossible to work out the performance of IBBI even if we ignore the matters suppressed and not reported. ATR on improving the same eg the percentages at paras 13, 17 and several other matters were and are suppressed in annual reports | |
| 34. | Out of the applications made for personal guarantors and for clawing, the value of admitted proceedings admitted, etc are not reported. ATR on the matter. ATRs may be furnished on low, miserable percentages and the ATRs should include ATRs on increasing them and information suppressed in annual reports may be furnished. | |
| 35. | The best way to increase realisations in insolvencies include.
|
|
| 36. | All ATRs must contain list of dates, action on the relevant dates, responses received if any, ATR post receipt of responses, reminders if no response etc . and results of ATR considering insolvencies, losses in insolvencies, real estate stalling etc | |
| 37. | The annual reports of IBBI and SEBI do not meet the requirements of law – ATR e.g. on the following; On this information suppressed in annual reports may be furnished
|
|
| 38. | The annual reports of IBBI must meet IBBI annual report rules requirements of and of course must be placed for approval of the respective Boards – Now from the pages at
https://ibbi.gov.in/about/board-meetings it does not appear that the annual reports are placed at the relevant Board meetings for approval . ATR on the matter. |
|
| 39. | On several status reports placed before the IBBI Board, the Board merely took note of the status report and did not point out shortcomings in performance of IBBI. ATR At the meeting held on 18.8.2023 a proposal on “Measures related to increasing the possibility of resolution, value of resolution plan, enabling timely resolution and change in reporting.” was placed. There were no statements on identifying matters for clawing, disciplining auditors, directors etc to ensure they report matters timely to enable easy identification of matters for clawing. ATR |
5. The Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/-
(Kulwant Singh)
First Appellate Authority
Copy to:
1. Appellant, Sundaresan
2. CPIO, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, 7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market, Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001.
