Summary: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), through its First Appellate Authority Sanjay Manocha, disposed of an appeal filed by Dr. Rajansh Thukral under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, concerning the competent authority responsible for constituting IBBI Disciplinary Committees and copies of the relevant office orders. The appellant contended that the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) had provided general website links instead of specific documents relating to the competent authority and the constitution of ten Disciplinary Committees. In its order dated 3 November 2026, the Appellate Authority observed that the information concerning constitution of the Disciplinary Committee was accessible through a PDF linked on the IBBI website and that the relevant committee details were also available online. Referring to Sections 2(f), 2(j), 3 and 8 of the RTI Act and Sections 197 and 220 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Authority held that a public authority is not required to collect or collate information that is not maintained in its records. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., which clarified that the RTI Act does not require public authorities to create information, draw inferences or provide opinions. Finding no merit in the appellant’s objections, the Authority disposed of the appeal.
BEFORE THE GENERAL MANAGER AND FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY
INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA
7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market,
Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001
Dated: 03rd November, 2026
Order under section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) in respect of RTI
Appeal Registration No. ISBBI/A/E/26/00049
IN THE MATTER OF
Dr. Rajansh Thukral … 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 22nd September 2026, under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). Due to administrative workload arising from unforeseen circumstances, same is disposed of within 45 days of receipt as per the provision of Section 19(6) of the RTI Act.
2. In the RTI Application dated 01st August, 2026, the Appellant had sought the following information:
“1. Who is the competent authority for constitution of Disciplinary Committees of IBBI at present.
2. Please provide copy of office order/ notification for appointment of competent authority.
3. Please provide copies of office orders of constitution of all 10 Disciplinary Committees as exist at present.”
3. The Respondent has provided certain link to the Appellant, to access the requisite information. The Appellant has preferred the present appeal stating that the reply does not furnish the specific information sought by him and has raised following concerns-
“1.That Questions No. 1 and 2 have not been answered. In response thereto, the CPIO has referred to a decision of the Governing Board meeting dated 16.01.2017 concerning Regulations relating to Advisory Committees under Section 197.
The information sought by the Appellant, however, specifically concerns the competent authority for constitution of the Disciplinary Committees of IBBI and the office order/notification appointing or authorising such competent authority.
The document/link referred to by the CPIO therefore pertains to a different subject and does not answer either Question No. 1 or Question No. 2. The CPIOs reply accordingly does not furnish the specific information sought.
2.That Question No. 2 specifically sought a copy of the office order/notification by which the competent authority for constitution of the Disciplinary Committees was appointed/authorised. No such office order/notification has been furnished or specifically identified in the reply.
3.That in response to Question No. 3, the CPIO has merely directed the Appellant to the IBBI website under About Us – Disciplinary Committee and stated that details relating to constitution of the 10 Disciplinary Committees are available there. The Appellant had specifically sought copies of the office orders constituting all 10 Disciplinary Committees and not merely details of their composition displayed on the website.
That although the IBBI webpage displays details regarding the Disciplinary Committees, the specific office orders constituting the Committees are not available for download through a functional link/button on the webpage. Consequently, merely providing a general website reference does not enable the Appellant to obtain the specific documents requested under Question No. 3.
4.That the CPIOs response does not provide a specific answer to Question No. 1, does not provide the office order/notification sought under Question No. 2, and does not provide copies of the office orders sought under Question No. 3.
5.The CPIO may kindly appreciate that the Appellant has not sought information which can be satisfied merely by providing a general website reference. The specific office orders/notifications constituting the Disciplinary Committees and authorising the competent authority were requested. the reply furnished by the CPIO does not address the specific information sought by the Appellant and therefore does not constitute a complete response to the RTI application.
6.The RTI application was filed because the specific information/documents sought were not available to the Appellant in an accessible form on the IBBI website.
7.That the Respondent deserves to be directed to provide the documents in response to the three questions as framed above.”.
4. I have carefully examined the application, the response of the Respondent and the 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, an applicant can have access to the same under the RTI Act subject to exemptions under section 8.
5. The Appellant has claimed that aforesaid information has not been provided by the CPIO, rather a general link has been provided and the aforesaid information is not available on the website of the IBBI. Section 220 read with the provision of Section 197 of IBC provides for the provisions of constitution of various committees including Disciplinary Committee. It is observed that in response thereto to the question No. 1 & 2 of RTI complaint, Respondent has provided a link directing to “Regulations relating to Advisory Committees under Section 197”; such link directs the user to two PDFs, among which the second one (140.86KB) provides for the information sought by the Appellant regarding constitution of the disciplinary committee. Thus, the ground of appeal that such information is not provided by the Respondent and unavailability of the information on the website of IBBI, does not hold merit.
6. It is further observed that the Appellant has asked for the collation of data with regards documents/ office orders of constitution of all the Disciplinary Committees. Such inquisitions are not covered in the scope of ‘information’. The Respondent cannot be expected to collate the data for the Appellant. Further, even if data pertaining to constitution of the Disciplinary Committees is concerned, the same is available on the website. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated August 9, 2011, in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., inter alia, that “35. …………………. .. 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 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….”
7. The Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Manocha)
First Appellate Authority
Copy to:
1. Appellant, Dr. Rajansh Thukral
2. CPIO, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, 7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market, Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001.
