RTI Not a Grievance Redress Forum & Not Required to Create New Information – Request for Replies to 18 Emails Dismissed
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) dismissed an appeal filed by Nelson James Macwan under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The appellant sought copies of replies to 19 emails sent to various IBBI officials. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) had previously denied the request, stating the queries were already addressed in earlier emails from April 18, 2023, and July 5, 2023. Macwan challenged this, arguing the CPIO failed to provide an item-wise response and prove a link between the new emails and the old replies.
The First Appellate Authority reviewed the case and upheld the CPIO’s decision. The authority determined that the appellant’s request was not for “information” as defined by the RTI Act, but rather a grievance related to the non-recognition of his degree from Sardar Patel University as a “Valuation Examination.” The order clarified that the RTI Act is not a forum for grievance redressal or for compelling a public authority to create new information. Citing a precedent from the Central Information Commission, the authority concluded that the CPIO cannot be forced to interpret or clarify information. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, as the CPIO’s response was deemed appropriate.
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: 09th September 2025
Order under section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) in respect of RTI Appeal Registration No. ISBBI/A/E/25/000108
IN THE MATTER OF
Nelson James Macwan
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 26th July 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, this Appeal is being disposed of within 45 days as enshrined under Section 19(6) of the RTI Act.
2. The Appellant had requested the following information, “Please provide copy of reply to my below mentioned emails: 1. Sent to – singh@ibbi.gov.in on 9th June 2025 2. Sent tomaini.ravinder@ibbi.gov.in on 7th June 2025 3. Sent to -rammilan.singh@ibbi.gov.in on 7th June 2025 4. Sent to -rammilan.singh@ibbi.gov.in on 6th June 2025 5. Sent to -rammilan.singh@ibbi.gov.in on 30th May 2025 6. Sent tomaini.ravinder@ibbi.gov.in on 30th May 2025 7. Sent toyadwinder.singh93@ibbi.gov.in on 28th May 2025 8. Sent tomaini.ravinder@ibbi.gov.in on 26th May 2025 9. Sent tob.sankar@ibbi.gov.in on 21st May 2025 10. Sent tob.sankar@ibbi.gov.in on 18th May 2025 11. Sent tob.sankar@ibbi.gov.in on 15th May 2025 12. Sent tob.sankar@ibbi.gov.in on 14th May 2025 13. Sent tob.sankar@ibbi.gov.in on 7th May 2025 14. Sent tob.sankar@ibbi.gov.in 10th May 2024 15. Sent tob.sankar@ibbi.gov.in on 23rd May 2024 16. Sent tob.sankar@ibbi.gov.in on 9th May 2024 17. Sent tob.sankar@ibbi.gov.in on 7th May 2024 18. Sent tob.sankar@ibbi.gov.in on 27th August 2024 19. Sent to Chairperson@ibbi.gov.in 18th June 2024.” The CPIO submitted that no information has been provided, as the queries raised in the impugned RTI Application had already been disposed of vide emails dated 18th April 2023 and 5th July 2023. Aggrieved by the CPIO reply, the Appellant has filed the present appeal stating that the CPIO has failed to provide an item-wise response to 18 specific emails by relying on prior replies (5th July 2023 and 18th April 2023) without establishing documentary linkage between them.
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. 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.
4. With regard to the emails sent to designated officials of IBBI, I note that the Appellant had sought response on the grant of recognition to the examination conducted as part of the Master’s or Post-graduate degree course by the Sardar Patel University, as equivalent to the Valuation Examination, under Rule 5 of the Companies (Registered Valuers and Valuation) Rules, 2017. Since IBBI has not furnished any reply to the grievance and only referred to its earlier emails dated 18th April 2023 and 5th July 2023, the CPIO cannot be compelled to create fresh information to the Appellant. On perusal of the copy of the impugned Appeal, the Appellant has stated the following, “The 18 emails referenced in my RTI are not mere repetitions; they contain detailed arguments, justifications, and procedural questions, constituting a sustained appeal against administrative inaction and indifference.” Since the queries raised in the Appeal are in the nature of grievance against refusal to recognize the Appellant’s examination as ‘Valuation Examination’, same is beyond the scope of the RTI Act as the RTI is not a grievance redressal forum. Moreover, the clarifications/interpretation on linkage between the previous replies and the queries raised in the impugned RTI Application, as sought by the Appellant, is beyond the ambit of the RTI Act. In 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.” In view of the aforesaid observations, the reply of the CPIO does not warrant any interference.
5. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
(Kulwant Singh)
First Appellate Authority
Copy to:
1. Appellant, Nelson James Macwan
2. CPIO, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, 7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market, Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001.
1. FAA Admits That IBBI Did Not Furnish Any Reply:
“Since IBBI has not furnished any reply to the grievance and only referred to its earlier emails dated 18th April 2023 and 5th July 2023…”
FAA’s own finding that IBBI never actually replied to your 18 emails, yet continues to use those same old 2023 references to deny my RTI.
2. FAA Acknowledges That my Queries Were Based on a Legitimate Issue
“The Appellant had sought response on the grant of recognition to the examination conducted as part of the Master’s or Post-graduate degree course by Sardar Patel University, as equivalent to the Valuation Examination…”
The matter clearly concerns a regulatory decision under statutory rules (Rule 5 of the Companies (Registered Valuers and Valuation) Rules, 2017).
Therefore, the FAA’s own order recognizes that the matter is not frivolous, but relates to how IBBI exercises its statutory powers — which should be public information under Section 4(1)(b).
3. FAA Dismissed the Appeal by Calling It a “Grievance”
“…since the queries raised in the Appeal are in the nature of grievance… same is beyond the scope of RTI Act.”
FAA wrongly treated a request for factual records as a grievance, even though I never sought any explanation or redressal.
I only sought copies of official notings and replies.
The FAA misapplied Section 2(f) and turned a factual RTI into a grievance matter — this is an error of law and non-application of mind.
4. FAA Itself Notes IBBI Failed to Provide Information Under Section 2(f)
“Since IBBI has not furnished any reply… the CPIO cannot be compelled to create fresh information.”
I never asked the CPIO to “create” information — I only asked for copies of records that must already exist, such as notings, remarks, and internal comments.
Therefore, FAA’s reliance on “not compelled to create information” is misplaced and reflects a failure to understand the RTI request.