The Delhi High Court has affirmed that while public authorities cannot be compelled to conduct exhaustive searches for information under the RTI Act, individuals have a right to access their own personal data even without policy numbers - provided sufficient identifying details are furnished. This ruling clarifies the balance between administrative feasibility and the fundamental right to information.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Ambika Gupta, filed an RTI application on 29.03.2022 seeking a complete list of all life insurance policies in which she was the insured party during her lifetime. She did not provide any policy number, relying solely on her identity as the insured. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) rejected the request on 31.03.2022, stating that LIC’s database is indexed by policy number and that information could not be retrieved without it.
Key Facts
- The appellant’s RTI application sought: “Detail list of all the policies wherein I am the insured party made at any point in time during my lifetime.”
- No policy number, date of policy issuance, or any other identifier was provided in the application.
- The CPIO’s reply dated 31.03.2022 stated: “The base of LIC is the policy number issued to the life assured, without policy number we are unable to provide you information sought by you.”
- The First Appellate Authority upheld the CPIO’s decision on 31.05.2022.
- The Central Information Commission (CIC), in its order dated 27.06.2023, directed LIC to establish a system enabling retrieval of policy data even without policy numbers, particularly in urgent situations.
- The CIC also advised LIC’s Managing Director to develop a robust system to identify policies without policy numbers and directed compliance within four weeks.
- On 21.12.2023, the Single Judge directed the CPIO to explore the possibility of retrieving information using alternative details.
- In compliance, the CPIO, using the appellant’s name, date of birth, gender, address with pin code, mobile number, email ID, and NEFT-registered bank account number, located two policies on 04.01.2024:
- Policy No. 213831773: Term TT 14-12, DOC 19.06.2003, Sum Assured Rs. 50,000, maturity paid 03.06.2015
- Policy No. 216008096: Term TT 14-10, DOC 28.04.2005, Sum Assured Rs. 60,000, maturity paid 28.04.2015
- LIC’s database contains over 27 crore active policies and 72 crore records.
- The appellant retired the writ petition before the Single Judge on 29.01.2026, which held that CIC’s directions were advisory and that information could be provided if alternative details were furnished.
Procedural History
- 29.03.2022: RTI application filed by appellant with no policy number.
- 31.03.2022: CPIO’s reply rejecting request for lack of policy number.
- 31.05.2022: First Appellate Authority upheld CPIO’s order.
- 27.06.2023: CIC passed order directing LIC to develop systems for retrieval without policy numbers and to furnish information to appellant.
- 21.12.2023: Single Judge directed CPIO to attempt retrieval using alternative details.
- 04.01.2024: CPIO disclosed two policies using name, DOB, address, NEFT details, etc.
- 16.12.2023: Writ Petition (W.P.(C) 16122/2023) filed by LIC challenging CIC’s order.
- 29.01.2026: Single Judge dismissed LIC’s petition, upheld CIC’s advisory nature, granted liberty to file fresh RTI with details.
- 11.03.2026: Judgment reserved.
- 08.04.2026: Judgment delivered by Division Bench.
The Parties' Positions
Appellant (Ambika Gupta): Argued that CIC’s order dated 27.06.2023 was binding under Section 19(7) of the RTI Act and that the Single Judge had no jurisdiction to modify or set it aside. Contended that Section 23 of the RTI Act bars judicial review except through appeal, and that the writ petition was not maintainable. Also sought compensation and guidelines to prevent insurance fraud.
Respondent (CPIO, LIC): Did not appear before the Court. The Single Judge’s order reflected LIC’s submissions that it cannot be expected to manually search 27 crore policies without any identifying details, and that a functional system already exists to retrieve data using name, DOB, NEFT account, etc.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought:
- Setting aside of the Single Judge’s order dated 29.01.2026
- Enforcement of CIC’s order dated 27.06.2023
- Issuance of guidelines to prevent insurance-related crimes (murder, arson, identity theft)
- Payment of compensation for delay and denial of information
The Legal Issue
Can the High Court, under Article 226, modify or set aside an order of the Central Information Commission under the RTI Act, when Section 19(7) declares such orders as final and binding, and Section 23 bars courts from entertaining suits or proceedings in respect of such orders?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant, appearing in person, contended that Section 19(7) of the RTI Act makes the CIC’s order final and binding, and Section 23 explicitly bars any court from entertaining any suit, application, or proceeding challenging such an order. She relied on the principle that statutory finality cannot be overridden by writ jurisdiction, citing State of U.P. v. Raj Narain and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. She argued that the Single Judge’s order, which diluted the CIC’s directive, was ultra vires and violated the statutory scheme. She further contended that the Court’s refusal to enforce the CIC’s order amounted to a denial of her right to information under Article 19(1)(a).
For the Respondent
The respondent did not appear before the Court. However, the Single Judge’s order, which the Division Bench upheld, reflected LIC’s position that it maintains a functional system capable of retrieving policy data using alternative identifiers such as name, date of birth, address, NEFT account, and mobile number. It was submitted that directing LIC to search 27 crore policies without any identifying detail would be administratively impossible and disproportionate. The Court accepted that the CIC’s directions were advisory and not mandatory, given the scale of LIC’s operations.
The Court's Analysis
The Division Bench undertook a detailed analysis of the interplay between statutory finality under the RTI Act and the constitutional power of judicial review under Article 226. It held that while Section 19(7) declares CIC orders as final and binding, this does not oust the High Court’s writ jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be abrogated by any statute, citing Minerva Mills v. Union of India and I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu.
"Writ jurisdiction, in fact, is plenary in nature and can be exercised by this Court in appropriate cases even where any statutory provision attaches finality to an order or makes such order binding. It is needless to state that judicial review is one of the basic features of the Constitution of India which cannot be taken away by any statutory provision."
The Court further clarified that Section 23 of the RTI Act bars civil courts from entertaining suits or proceedings, but does not extend to writ petitions under Article 226. The Bench observed that the CIC’s order, while binding on the parties, was not a judicial order but an administrative direction. The CIC had not directed the immediate disclosure of information in this case but had advised the development of a systemic solution.
The Court noted that the CPIO had already complied with the spirit of the CIC’s order by retrieving the information using the appellant’s personal details. The Single Judge’s observation that the CIC’s directions were advisory was therefore correct, as the law does not compel public authorities to perform impossible searches. The Court held:
"It is quite possible that an insured person may not know the policy number; however, the other details which will enable the LIC to retrieve the details of the insurance policy need to be furnished by a person seeking any such information. In absence of such details, in our opinion, it will be impossible for the LIC to retrieve the information and furnish it to the information seeker."
The Court concluded that the appellant was not denied access to information; she was merely required to provide sufficient identifying details, which are within her knowledge. The liberty granted to file a fresh RTI application with such details was deemed sufficient and fair.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The Delhi High Court upheld the Single Judge’s order dated 29.01.2026, holding that the CIC’s directions were advisory and not mandatory. The Court affirmed that an insured person may obtain policy information without a policy number, provided they furnish their name, date of birth, gender, address with pin code, mobile number, email ID, and NEFT-registered bank account number. No compensation was awarded. No costs were imposed. The appellant retains the right to file a fresh RTI application with the required details.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Information Requests Must Be Reasonably Specific
- Practitioners must advise clients to include at least five identifying details (name, DOB, address, mobile, bank account) when seeking personal data from large databases.
- Blanket requests without any identifiers will be rejected as unreasonable under Section 6(2) of the RTI Act.
- Public authorities may refuse requests that require manual scanning of millions of records without sufficient parameters.
CIC Orders Are Binding But Not Automatically Enforceable as Court Directives
- CIC orders under Section 19(7) are binding on the parties but do not automatically become judicial orders enforceable by writ.
- Courts retain discretion to assess feasibility and proportionality before enforcing CIC directions.
- Where a public authority demonstrates a functional system to retrieve data, courts may treat CIC’s systemic recommendations as advisory.
Judicial Review Survives Statutory Finality Clauses
-
Section 23 of the RTI Act does not bar writ petitions under Article 226.
-
Courts may examine whether CIC orders are arbitrary, disproportionate, or impossible to implement.
-
The doctrine of judicial review as a basic feature of the Constitution overrides any statutory ouster clause.
-
Always verify whether the requested information is personal to the applicant - this strengthens the claim under Section 6(2).
-
If a public authority has a digital search mechanism, insist on its use rather than accepting blanket refusals.
-
CIC orders should be framed with specificity; vague directives on system upgrades are more likely to be treated as advisory.
