Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has dismissed an RTI appeal filed by Akhilesh Mishra, seeking a detailed breakup of claims submitted by Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited in the insolvency resolution process of Jaiprakash Associates Limited. The First Appellate Authority, Kulwant Singh, ruled that the requested information is not maintained by IBBI and cannot be created as per the RTI Act. The original response from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) stated that such data was not available, prompting Mishra to file the appeal, arguing that the reply was incomplete.
The order highlighted that under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, public authorities are only obligated to provide information that exists in their records and are not required to generate new data. Additionally, the ruling referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in CBSE & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors (2011), which clarified that the RTI Act grants access to existing records but does not require authorities to collect or compile non-existent information. Similarly, the Central Information Commission (CIC) in Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO, SEBI (2013) held that authorities cannot create information that is not already in their possession.
The order further emphasized that compiling the requested data would disproportionately divert IBBI’s resources, invoking Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, reaffirming that the right to information is limited to existing and accessible records.
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: 3rd March, 2025
Order under section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) in respect of
RTI Appeal Registration No. ISBBI/A/E/25/00017
IN THE MATTER OF
Akhilesh Mishra
… 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 21st January 2025, challenging the communication of the Respondent, filed under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). In the RTI Application, the Appellant had requested for detailed breakup of claims filed by Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited in the insolvency resolution process of M/s Jaiprakash Associates Limited as operational creditor (other than workmen, employees and government dues). The CPIO replied that the data as sought is not maintained by IBBI. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant has filed the present Appeal stating that the reply is incomplete and unsatisfactory.
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 record. In terms of section 2(f) of the RTI Act ‘information’ means “any material in anyform, 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, an applicant can have access to the same under the RTI Act subject to exemptions under section 8.
3. The Appellant has requested for fragmentation of claims filed by the Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited. The information sought by the Appellant is available on the IBBI website, but the nature of the information sought by the Appellant requires further breakup of details, which is not maintained by the Respondent. In this regard, it is pertinent to note 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. As stated in the Guide on the RTI Act issued by the DoPT under OM No. 1/32/2013-IR dated 28th November 2013 –
“The Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information that is not apart of the record of the public authority. The Public Information Officer is also not required to furnish information which require drawing ofinference and/or making of assumptions; or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions.”
4. The Respondent is expected to provide information as available on record and not create any information. Accordingly, as the detailed breakup is not available with CPIO, he cannot be expected to create and provide such 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 Actprovides 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 ofthe 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 CIC in the matter of Sh. Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO, SEBI (Decision datedJuly 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.”
5. The information sought by the Appellant is not maintained by the Board as desired by the Appellant. Moreover, if the Respondent is asked to collate that information, the information sought would disproportionately divert the resources of IBBI, attracting section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
6. This Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/
(Kulwant Singh)
First Appellate Authority
Copy to:
1. Appellant, Akhilesh Mishra
2. CPIO, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, 7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market, Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001.
