The Central Information Commission has clarified that Public Information Officers (PIOs) under the Right to Information Act, 2005, cannot evade their statutory duty by asserting that information is held by private entities. When such entities are regulated by a public authority and the information pertains to public service, the PIO is obligated to obtain, collect, and provide the data.
The Verdict
The appellant won. The Central Information Commission held that a Public Information Officer cannot refuse to provide service and salary details of a deceased teacher merely because the records are maintained by a private school. The PIO is legally obligated to obtain such information from the regulated private entity and furnish it to the requester, unless exempted under the RTI Act. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the information within three weeks or face a show cause notice.
Background & Facts
The appellant, Yogesh Kumar Mittal, filed an RTI application on 3 March 2024 seeking details regarding the service and salary of his deceased wife, Late Smt. Anita Mittal alias Sushma Gupta, who had worked for 39 years as a teacher at Children Welfare Public School (School ID: 1051361). The information sought included her salary payments in January 2020, cheque details, and class assignments for July, August, and September 2020.
The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi’s Education Department did not respond to the RTI application. The appellant filed a first appeal on 24 July 2024. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 2 August 2024 directed the PIO to reply to three pending RTIs, including this one, within fifteen working days. However, no response was provided.
The appellant then filed a second appeal with the Central Information Commission on 5 September 2024. During the hearing, the respondent, represented by the CPIO and a school teacher, argued that the records of salary and teaching assignments were maintained solely by the private school and not by the Education Department. The appellant, as the legal heir of the deceased teacher, contended that the information was essential for his personal and legal records and that the Department had a duty to obtain it.
The Legal Issue
Can a Public Information Officer refuse to provide information under the RTI Act, 2005, on the ground that the records are held by a private entity, even when that entity is regulated by the public authority and the information concerns public service?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant argued that his deceased wife had been employed for nearly four decades in a school operating under the regulatory oversight of the Municipal Corporation’s Education Department. He cited Section 6 of the RTI Act, which guarantees the right to information, and emphasized that the Department had previously obtained similar records from private schools for other applicants. He further relied on Section 6(2), which mandates that the PIO must assist the applicant in formulating the request if needed, implying a proactive duty. As the legal heir, he asserted his right to access service and salary records under the principle of personal and familial rights under Article 21.
For the Respondent
The Respondent contended that the school was a private institution and that salary records and teaching assignments were maintained independently by the school management. They argued that the Education Department only provided grants-in-aid and did not maintain day-to-day personnel records. Therefore, they claimed, the information was not held by the public authority and could not be compelled under Section 2(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which defines ‘public authority’ as an entity that holds information.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission rejected the Respondent’s argument that the private school’s record-keeping absolved the PIO of responsibility. It emphasized that the RTI Act imposes a duty on the PIO to obtain information even if it is not directly held by the public authority, provided the information is under the control or regulation of that authority. The Commission noted that the school received grants-in-aid and operated under the regulatory framework of the Education Department, making it functionally integrated into the public education system.
"The PIO is duty-bound under the RTI Act to access, collect, or obtain the information from the concerned school and provide the same to the information seeker, unless the information is otherwise exempted under the Act. The PIO has to apply his own independent mind and cannot act merely as a Post-Office."
The Commission referenced past precedents where PIOs had successfully obtained similar records from private institutions and held that consistency in application of the law is essential. It further observed that the FAA’s order was binding under Section 19(6) of the RTI Act, and non-compliance undermined the statutory appellate mechanism. The Commission concluded that the Department’s role as a regulator and funder created a sufficient nexus to trigger the PIO’s obligation to retrieve the information.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This decision significantly expands the scope of information that public authorities must proactively obtain under the RTI Act. Practitioners representing applicants seeking service records, salary details, or administrative data from private schools, hospitals, or NGOs receiving public funds or regulation can now rely on this order to compel PIOs to act as active information gatherers, not passive conduits.
The ruling establishes that regulatory oversight, financial support, or functional integration with public institutions is sufficient to trigger the PIO’s duty under Section 6. However, the scope is limited to information directly related to public service functions. Information unrelated to the public function - such as internal private school policies or personal data not connected to employment - may still be exempt under Section 8. Practitioners should now routinely include requests for ‘obtaining from regulated entities’ in RTI applications and cite this order when responses are evasive.
The Commission’s directive to the FAA to ensure compliance also reinforces accountability at the appellate level, making non-compliance by PIOs a potential ground for disciplinary action under Section 20.
