The Central Information Commission has clarified a foundational principle of the Right to Information Act: public authorities are not obligated to generate, interpret, or create information that does not already exist in their records. This ruling reinforces the statutory boundary between access to existing documents and the demand for legal analysis or opinion.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Sagar Giri, filed an RTI application on 23 December 2024 seeking detailed information on the legal validity of adoptions prior to 1950, the determination of caste after such adoptions, the procedure for issuing caste certificates in such cases, judicial precedents on the subject, and the social and legal consequences of pre-1950 adoptions. The queries were not requests for existing records but sought legal interpretations, historical analysis, and doctrinal clarification.
Procedural History
- 23 December 2024: RTI application filed with CPIO, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment.
- 21 February 2025: Application transferred to Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), Ministry of Women and Child Development, under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
- 9 February 2025: First appeal filed due to non-response.
- 3 March 2025: First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, directing the appellant to approach CARA.
- 3 March 2025: CARA responded with a single-line reply: "जानकारी उपलब्ध नहीं है" (Information not available).
- 18 March 2025: Second appeal filed before the Central Information Commission.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought a direction to CARA to provide the requested information, arguing that the details were inherently within the domain of CARA’s mandate and therefore must be available in its records.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 obligates a public authority to generate, interpret, or analyze information not already documented in its records, or whether the obligation is strictly limited to disclosing existing records.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant contended that the information sought was within CARA’s functional domain as the nodal agency for adoption. He argued that historical records of adoptions, caste determinations, and judicial orders must be maintained as part of CARA’s administrative responsibility. He relied on the spirit of the RTI Act to demand transparency, asserting that the refusal to provide answers amounted to evasion of statutory duty.
For the Respondent
The Respondent, CARA, maintained that the queries were not requests for existing records but amounted to legal opinions, historical interpretations, and doctrinal explanations. It argued that the RTI Act does not require public authorities to act as legal advisors or historians. The response "Information not available" was accurate because no such compiled or recorded data existed in its files.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission undertook a rigorous interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, which defines "information" as "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."
The Commission emphasized that while the definition includes "opinions" and "advices," these terms refer only to those already existing in the records of the public authority - not those to be generated upon request. The Commission cited the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors to affirm that the RTI Act does not impose a duty to create, collate, or infer information.
"A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide
advice' oropinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish anyopinion' oradvice' to an applicant."
The Commission held that requiring CPIOs to interpret historical adoption laws, determine caste entitlements based on pre-1950 customs, or compile judicial opinions would transform them into legal scholars - a role neither contemplated nor mandated by the Act. Such an expansion would create an unreasonable burden, expose officials to penal liability under Section 20 for "wrong" interpretations, and undermine the Act’s objective of facilitating access to existing records, not enabling litigation through information requests.
The Verdict
The appellant’s appeal was dismissed. The Commission held that Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 does not obligate public authorities to generate, interpret, or analyze information not already documented in their records. The response "Information not available" was legally valid and sufficient.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Information Requests Must Be Specific and Record-Based
- Practitioners must frame RTI applications to seek existing documents, files, or data - not legal opinions, historical summaries, or doctrinal explanations.
- Vague or interpretive queries (e.g., "What is the law on...?" or "Explain the position...") are not actionable under the RTI Act.
- Applicants should cite specific document types: circulars, registers, orders, or minutes.
CPIOs May Legally Decline Interpretive Requests
- CPIOs may respond with "Information not available" when the request seeks analysis, not records.
- Such responses are not grounds for appeal if the authority can demonstrate no such records exist.
- First Appellate Authorities must uphold such responses unless the applicant proves the existence of the requested material.
Judicial Precedent as Binding Authority
- CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay remains the authoritative precedent on the scope of "information" under the RTI Act.
- Any attempt to expand Section 2(f) beyond existing records will be rejected by appellate authorities.
- Applicants seeking legal interpretations must approach courts or legal experts - not public authorities under the RTI Act.
