The Central Information Commission has clarified that speculative or hypothetical inquiries about policy interpretations do not qualify as actionable information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. This decision reinforces the boundary between informational disclosure and legal interpretation, with significant implications for applicants seeking policy clarifications through RTI.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant sought information from Oriental Insurance Company Limited regarding whether insurers can reject claims for treatments already completed if a patient is referred to another hospital. He also inquired whether insurance regulations permit switching treating hospitals during ongoing treatment, and requested copies of relevant policy pages.
Procedural History
- 18 March 2024: RTI application filed seeking four specific queries on insurance claim norms and hospital-switching policies.
- 4 April 2024: CPIO rejected the request, stating the information sought did not fall under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as it involved hypothetical interpretations.
- 9 May 2024: First appeal filed challenging the CPIO’s response.
- 4 June 2024: First Appellate Authority upheld the CPIO’s rejection, calling all queries "hypothetical" and outside the scope of the RTI Act.
- 2 September 2024: Second appeal filed with the Central Information Commission.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought disclosure of the relevant policy documents and clarification of insurance norms governing hospital referrals and treatment continuity.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 encompasses hypothetical or interpretive queries about policy application, or whether such requests fall outside the definition of "information" as accessible material.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant, though absent during the hearing, had contended in his appeal that the requested documents constituted official policy guidelines accessible to the CPIO and therefore qualified as "information" under Section 2(f). He argued that the refusal to provide policy pages violated the spirit of transparency under the RTI Act.
For the Respondent
The CPIO and its representative contended that the queries were not requests for existing records but sought legal interpretations and hypothetical scenarios. They asserted that Section 2(f) requires information to be material already in hand, not opinions or advice to be generated. The CPIO emphasized that the questions required speculative analysis beyond the scope of statutory disclosure obligations.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission examined the definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which includes "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." The Commission noted that while opinions and advice are included, they must be pre-existing and accessible.
"Query No. 1 is hypothetical and clarification/interpretation of which is outside the purview of the RTI Act 2005. Hence your subsequent connected Queries 2 and 3 are also irrelevant. Also, Query No. 4 raised by the applicant is hypothetical in nature and is not within the scope of RTI Act."
The Commission held that the appellant’s questions did not seek existing documents but rather sought legal interpretations of policy terms under hypothetical conditions - such as whether a claim could be denied after a referral, or whether switching hospitals was permitted. These are not facts or records but require legal or policy analysis, which the RTI Act does not compel public authorities to generate.
The Commission further noted that the appellant’s absence during the hearing indicated lack of interest in pursuing the matter, reinforcing the view that the appeal lacked substantive engagement with the legal threshold for disclosure.
The Verdict
The appellant’s appeal was dismissed. The Commission held that hypothetical queries seeking interpretation of policy norms do not constitute "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, and that the CPIO’s rejection was legally valid.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Hypothetical Queries Are Not Information
- Practitioners must distinguish between requests for existing documents and requests for legal interpretations or policy opinions
- RTI applications must specify concrete records, not ask "what if" scenarios
- Authorities may lawfully reject applications that require them to create new analysis or advice
Documentary Evidence Must Be Specific
- Applicants should cite exact document titles, policy numbers, or reference codes when seeking records
- Vague references like "the relevant policy pages" without identifiers increase risk of rejection
- Always attach supporting evidence of prior correspondence to strengthen procedural standing
Absence Can Be Fatal to RTI Appeals
- Even if the legal position is strong, non-appearance at hearing may lead to dismissal on procedural grounds
- Applicants must actively participate in appellate stages to preserve rights
- Legal representatives should file written submissions if personal appearance is not possible
