Rahul Gupta Vs CPIO (Central Information Commission)
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has rejected an appeal by Rahul Gupta against the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), upholding the stance that public authorities are not required to provide opinions or advice under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Gupta’s request for information concerning the original title deed of a property was originally denied by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, citing commercial and fiduciary confidentiality. The CIC’s decision has further ramifications on the interpretation of the RTI Act and the duties of public authorities.
Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the Commission rejected appeal and the decision was made on the basis that a ‘public authority’ is 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.
Facts: The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.09.2021 seeking the information pertaining to the original title deed of the property to which CPIO replied that the information sought come under the “Commercial Confidence as per Section 8(1)(d) and Fiduciary information as per Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI. Act, 2005 and is exempt from disclosure under the provisions of the ACT.”
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.10.2021. FAA’s order, dated 02.11.2021, has directed the CPIO to provide the desired information to the appellant.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal, wherein it was held that the information sought for in the impugned RTI Application has an interrogative essence which is not covered under the definition of information as envisaged in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It was observed that for better understanding the mandate of RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. Reliance was made upon CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
“35. …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.
On basis of the above, the Appellant was advised to approach appropriate forum in order to redress his grievance Hence, no intervention was made by the Commission.
Conclusion: The decision of the CIC in Rahul Gupta vs CPIO reasserts the limitation of public authorities under the RTI Act, specifically noting that they are not required to make assumptions, draw inferences, or provide advice or opinions in response to RTI requests. This clarifies the definition of ‘information’ under the Act and may lead to more precise handling of future RTI applications. The appellant, Rahul Gupta, has been directed to seek redress through an appropriate forum for his grievance.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
