Public Authorities Not Obligated to Provide Opinions or Clarifications Under RTI Act

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) issued an order on February 21, 2025, under Section 19 of the RTI Act, addressing appeals filed by Nimit Kalsi. The appeals, registered as ISBBI/A/E/25/00015 and ISBBI/A/E/25/00016, challenged the responses provided by IBBI’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO). The matter was examined based on available material, considering the definition of “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The appeals sought copies of applications and orders related to the extension of inspection timelines for an insolvency professional. The CPIO provided available email correspondences but clarified that no formal extension orders had been issued. The First Appellate Authority reiterated that the RTI Act allows access only to existing records held by a public authority and does not require the creation or interpretation of information. Citing precedents from the Central Information Commission and the Supreme Court, the order emphasized that public authorities are not obligated to provide opinions, clarifications, or policy recommendations under RTI. As the requested information was already provided where available, and no additional records existed, the appeals were dismissed.

BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA

7^th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market,
Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001
Dated: 21^st February, 2025

Order under section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) in respect of RTI Appeal Registration No. ISBBI/A/E/25/00015 & ISBBI/A/E/25/00016

IN THE MATTER OF

Nimit Kalsi                                                                                                    … Appellant

Vs.

Central Public Information Officer
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
7^th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market,
Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001                                                           … Respondent

1. The Appellant has filed the present Appeals dated 18^th January 2025, challenging the communication of the Respondent, filed under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). As the appeals required detailed analysis of provisions of the RTI Act, same are disposed of within 45 days. Also, as the Appeals pertain to similar subject matter, same are disposed vide a common order.

2. 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 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, etc. an applicant can have access to the same under the RTI Act subject to exemptions under section 8.

3. The request of the Appellant and the reply of the Respondent is as follows –

4. I have carefully examined the application, the response of the Respondent and 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. It is noted that 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.”.

5. The aforesaid definition 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 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, etc. an applicant can have access to the same under the RTI Act subject to exemptions under section. It is also 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.

6. The Hon’ble CIC in M Jameel Basha Vs. CPIO, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances & Pension, Department of   Personnel &     Training,  North   Block,  New   Delhi   -110001,   File   No: CIC/MPERS/A/2017/158527/SD (Decision dated 06.05.2019), has observed the following:

“Commission concedes with the submission of the CPIO as no information has been sought as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It may be noted that under RTI Act, CPIO is not supposed to create information or interpret/clarify/deduct information in respect of queries/clarifications. Similarly, redressal of grievance, non-compliance of rules, contesting the actions of respondent public authority and suggesting correction in government policies are outside the purview of the RTI Act.”

7. I also note that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated August 9, 2011 in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education & vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. had held that: …A public authority is “…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. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.”

8. Further, the Respondent is expected to provide information as available on record and not create any Accordingly, the information as available with CPIO, is already beein provided to the Appellant. He cannot 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’. Accordingly, in my view, the information as requested by the Appellant has been disclosed to her under the RTI Act and no further information can be disclosed.

9. This Appeals are accordingly, disposed of.

Sd/
(Kulwant Singh)
First Appellate Authority

Copy to:
1. Appellant, Nimit Kalsi
2. CPIO, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, 7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar
Market, Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001.