New Delhi: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI)’s First Appellate Authority has upheld the decision of its Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to deny information regarding the “vetting” process of several IBBI regulations and orders. Appellant Jitender Kumar Jain had requested details about how specific regulations, including those concerning liquidation, inspection, grievance handling, model bye-laws for Insolvency Professional Agencies, and delegation of powers, were vetted and amended over time. The IBBI CPIO had responded that the information sought was not available with the board.
In his appeal, Mr. Jain contended that the information was wrongly denied. However, the First Appellate Authority, Executive Director Kulwant Singh, referenced the scope of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, explaining that ‘information’ accessible under the Act is limited to material ‘held by or is under the control of a public authority’. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors, the authority noted that the RTI Act provides access to existing and available information on record, but does not obligate a public authority to collect, collate, or create information that is not part of its records or required to be maintained by law. A decision by the Central Information Commission (Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO, SEBI) was also cited, holding that if information is not in possession, it cannot be invented. Based on these principles, the appellate authority found that since the information regarding the specific vetting process as sought was not available on record with the CPIO, it could not be provided under the RTI Act. The CPIO’s response was therefore deemed satisfactory, and the appeal was disposed of.
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: 25th April 2025
Order under section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) in respect of RTI Appeal Registration No. ISBBI/A/E/25/00066
IN THE MATTER OF
Jitender Kumar Jain
Vs.
Central Public Information Officer
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market,
Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001
The Appellant has filed the present Appeal dated 22nd March 2025, challenging the communication of the Respondent, filed under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). As the Appeal required detailed analysis of different provisions of the RTI Act, the same is disposed of within 45 days of receipt of the impugned Appeal.
2. The Appellant had sought the following information, “Please provide information relating to vetting of following regulations including their amendment from time to time as prepared by Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India: 1. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 2. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Inspection and Investigation) Regulations, 2017 3. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Grievance and Complaint Handling Procedure) Regulations,2017 4. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Model Byelaws and Governing Board of Insolvency Professional Agencies) Regulations, 2016 5. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Delegation of Powers and Functions) Order, 2017”. The Respondent CPIO has replied that the information as sought by the Appellant is not available with it. Aggrieved with the same, the Appellant has filed the present Appeal stating that the Respondent CPIO has wrongly denied the information sought by the Appellant.
3. I have carefully examined the applications, the responses of the Respondent and the Appeals 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. While the “right to information” flows from section 3 of the RTI Act, it is subject to other 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, anapplicant can have access to the same under the RTI Act subject to exemptions under section 8
4. It is pertinent to note that the Respondent is expected to provide information as available on record and not create any information. Accordingly, as no information is available with CPIO, he cannot be expected to provide any other information. Same is beyond the scope of ‘right to information’ under section 2(j) of the RTI Act which limits the information to one ‘accessible’ under the RTI Act and ‘which is held by or under the control of any public authority’. In this context, I note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors (Judgment dated August 9, 2011), inter alia held: “The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. …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.” Further, I note that the Hon’ble GIG in the matter of Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO, SEBI (Decision dated July 8, 2013), held: “… if it (SEBI) does not have any such information in its possession, the CPIO cannot obviously invent one for the benefit of the Appellant. There is simply no information to be given.” Since the Respondent CPIO has disposed the RTI Application satisfactorily, it does not warrant our interference.
5. The Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/-
(Kulwant Singh)
First Appellate Authority
Copy to:
1. Appellant, Jitender Kumar Jain
2. CPIO, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, 7thFloor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market, Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001.
