On June 21, 2024, the Executive Director and First Appellate Authority of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) issued an order regarding the RTI Appeal filed by Ashish Shankar. This article delves into the details of the appeal, the reasons behind its dismissal, and the implications for similar cases under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).
Background of the Case
Ashish Shankar, the appellant, filed an RTI Application (No. ISBBI/R/E/24/00090) on May 27, 2024, seeking information from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the IBBI. Dissatisfied with the response, Shankar subsequently filed an appeal (No. ISBBI/A/E/24/00014) on May 29, 2024, which brought the matter before the First Appellate Authority.
The RTI Application and Appeal
The core issue highlighted in the appeal was the lack of specific information in Shankar’s original RTI request. The RTI Act mandates that information requests must be clear and specific. However, Shankar’s application was found to be vague and accusatory, lacking concrete details or clear questions. This ambiguity made it difficult for the CPIO to provide a precise response.
Legal Precedents and Comparison
The First Appellate Authority referenced a precedent set in the case of Shri Harmit Singh vs. Central Excise Department, Chandigarh (Order dated November 07, 2008). In this case, the Hon’ble CIC held that unclear and vague requests do not fall under the definition of ‘information’ as per the RTI Act. The respondents were justified in rejecting such requests, as they did not constitute specific queries that could be addressed with concrete information.
Decision of the First Appellate Authority
In his order, Jithesh John, the Executive Director and First Appellate Authority, upheld the decision of the CPIO. He noted that Shankar’s appeal did not specify the exact information required and was more of a grievance or accusation rather than a request for information. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of being unclear and not aligning with the RTI Act’s definitions of ‘information’ and ‘right to information’.
Conclusion
The dismissal of Ashish Shankar’s RTI appeal by the IBBI underscores the importance of clarity and specificity in RTI applications. Vague and accusatory requests are unlikely to be entertained, as demonstrated by both the current case and previous legal precedents. For appellants, this case serves as a reminder to clearly articulate their requests, ensuring they fall within the ambit of the RTI Act. This decision also reinforces the procedural integrity of the RTI process, emphasizing that the Act is a tool for obtaining specific information, not for airing grievances or making broad accusations.
BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA
2nd Floor, Jeevan Vihar Building
Sansad Marg, New Delhi- 110 001
Dated: 21st June, 2024
RTI Appeal Registration No. ISBBI/A/E/24/00014
IN THE MATTER OF
Ashish Shankar
… Appellant
Vs.
Central Public Information Officer
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
2nd Floor, Jeevan Vihar Building
Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001.
… Respondent
ORDER
1. The Appellant has filed the present Appeal dated 29th May 2024 with regard to his RTI Application No. ISBBI/R/E/24/00090 dated 27th May 2024 filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).
2. I note that the Appellant has not specified the exact information requirement. The Appeal is unclear and vague and is more in the nature of accusation and grievance of the Appellant. Same does not fall within the definition of ‘information’ and ‘right to information’ under the RTI Act, 2005. The matter of Shri Harmit Singh Vs. Central Excise Department, Chandigarh (Order dated November 07, 2008) the Hon’ble GIG inter alia held that the respondents therein were right in rejecting the request as it is quite unclear and vague and no specific information can be identified on the basis of the signals contained in the query.
3. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the Respondent. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/
(Jithesh John)
First Appellate Authority
Copy to:
1. Appellant, Ashish Shankar.
2. CPIO, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, 2nd Floor, Jeevan Vihar Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001.
