Information published online cannot be considered under control of public authority: IBBI

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has dismissed an appeal filed by R. Ramachandra against the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) regarding the availability of information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The appeal challenged the CPIO’s response to Ramachandra’s RTI request, which sought details about the current Official Liquidator of Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd., Kolkata. The CPIO had informed the appellant that the requested information was publicly accessible on the IBBI website. In his appeal, Ramachandra urged the First Appellate Authority (FAA) to intervene, citing the need for this information to present to the Gauhati High Court. Upon review, the FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision, emphasizing that under the RTI Act, public authorities are not obliged to provide information already available in the public domain. The FAA referenced a similar decision by the Central Information Commission (CIC), affirming that information published online is not considered under the control of the public authority and can be accessed by anyone. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, maintaining the CPIO’s stance that the information is readily available on the IBBI website and does not require additional disclosure.

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: 19th August, 2024

IN THE MATTER OF

R. Ramachandra
Vs.
Central Public Information Officer
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market,
Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001. .

ORDER

1. The Appellant has filed present Appeal dated 2^nd July 2024 (received by office of FAA on 19^th July 2024), challenging the communication of the Respondent dated 12^th July 2024 with regard to his RTI Application No. ISBBI/R/P/24/00017 dated 14^th May 2024 filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). It has taken me time to read through the documents and the dispose the same. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed in 45 days instead of 30 days.

2. The request of the Appellant and the response of the Respondent is as follows –

3. In the appeal, the Appellant has state as follows –

“With reference to the above subject cited above kindly intervene your good self to enable to get the details required to submit to the Honorable High Court of Gauhati to get my justice.

Herewith I have enclosed the copy of RTI application dt. 14th May 2024 followed by another letter dt. 4th June 2024 along with copy of the High court Order.

I am confident without any further delay you would take necessary action to provide the required information t”

4. I have carefully examined the application, the response of the Respondent and the submissions made in the Appeal. Before examining the request, I deem it appropriate to deal with scope of ‘information’ and right to receive the information under the RTI Act. The definition of information contemplates providing of material in the forms of records, documents, opinions, advice, etc. It does not include giving opinions on issues raised or providing clarifications or advice to inquisitions. 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 and which can be disclosed subject to exemptions under section 8 of the RTI Act. Thus, if the public authority holds any ‘information’ in the form of data, statistics, abstracts, an applicant can have access to the same under the RTI Act subject to exemptions under section 8. It is thus, clear that the “right to information” under section 3 of the RTI Act is circumscribed by RTI Act itself as the right is limited within scope of ‘information’ as defined under section 2(f) and is subject to other provisions including those under section 8 of the Act.

5. As regards information requested by the Appellant, it is noted that the same is available in public domain on the website of the Board at ibbi.gov.in and can be easily accessed by the Appellant from the link provided to him by the Respondent. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the decision of Hon’ble CIC in Shri Girish Prasad Gupta vs. CPIO, Indian Oil Corporation (decided on March 30, 2015), wherein it was held that:- “.. we note that the information that is placed by a public authority on its website is already available in the public domain and is, therefore, not under the control of the public authority. It can be obtained by any interested person by consulting the relevant website. If public authorities are required to provide hard copies of the information, already available on their website as part of suo motu disclosure, such suo motu disclosure will become futile, because the very purpose of such disclosure is to ensure that applicants do not have to approach public authorities to get a good deal of information already placed by them on their website.”

6. In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the decision of the Respondent. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

Sd/
(Jithesh John)
First Appellate Authority

Copy to:

1. Appellant, R. Ramachandran.

2. CPIO, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, 7^th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market, Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001.