The Central Information Commission's recent decision in Akshayay Kumar Sahoo v. NTPC Ltd clarifies a critical boundary in the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Commission held that requests seeking justifications for administrative decisions - particularly those related to performance assessments - do not qualify as 'information' under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. This ruling reinforces the principle that RTI proceedings cannot be repurposed as forums for grievance redressal, aligning with precedents from the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, an employee of NTPC Ltd, sought details under the RTI Act regarding the retention of his performance assessment ratings for the years 2021, 2022, and 2023. Specifically, he requested the data examined by the appellate authority that led to the retention of his performance buckets (M1 for 2021 and 2022, and B for 2023) as assigned by the Performance Management Committee (PMC). The appellant had previously filed appeals against these ratings, which were subsequently upheld by the appellate authority.
Procedural History
The timeline of the case is as follows:
- 16 May 2024: RTI application filed offline, seeking justifications for the retention of performance buckets.
- 13 June 2024: Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) responded, stating that the query did not fall under the purview of the RTI Act.
- 9 July 2024: First appeal filed by the appellant (order not on record).
- 13 November 2024: Second appeal filed before the Central Information Commission (CIC).
Relief Sought
The appellant sought detailed records of the appellate authority's examination process, including the basis for retaining his performance ratings. He contended that this information was critical for understanding the decision-making process and addressing his grievances regarding the assessments.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Commission was whether the appellant's request for justifications behind the retention of his performance ratings constituted 'information' as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Additionally, the Commission had to determine whether the RTI Act could be used as a mechanism for grievance redressal.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant argued that the information sought was maintained in the records of NTPC Ltd and was essential for transparency in the performance assessment process. He contended that the CPIO's refusal to provide the data was arbitrary and contrary to the spirit of the RTI Act, which mandates disclosure of information held by public authorities.
For the Respondent
The respondent, represented by the CPIO and General Manager, submitted that the information sought was not maintained in the records. They clarified that while the appellant had been informed of his pre-normalized and final-normalized performance ratings, the justifications for these ratings were not documented. The respondent further argued that the appellant's query was in the nature of a grievance, which could not be addressed under the RTI Act. They relied on the precedent Dr. K.C. Vijayakumaran Nair v. Department of Post to assert that disclosure of such justifications was not in the public interest and would promote personal interests.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission's analysis centered on 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 observed that the appellant's request sought justifications for an administrative decision, which did not fall within this definition.
"The query raised by the Appellant is in the nature of grievance and the Appellant is trying to seek redressal of the grievance under the garb of seeking information."
The Commission relied on judicial precedents to reinforce its reasoning:
- In Hansi Rawat v. Punjab National Bank, the Delhi High Court held that "proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
- In Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Rajender Prasad, the Delhi High Court emphasized that the CIC is a statutory body with powers delineated under the RTI Act and cannot examine disputes beyond its jurisdiction.
- The Supreme Court, in Union of India v. Namit Sharma, clarified that the Information Commission does not decide disputes between parties concerning their legal rights other than the right to information.
The Commission concluded that the appellant's request was an attempt to use the RTI Act as a grievance redressal mechanism, which was beyond its scope. It advised the appellant to approach the appropriate forum for addressing his grievances.
The Verdict
The Commission disposed of the appeal, holding that the information sought by the appellant was not maintained in the records of the respondent public authority and, therefore, could not be provided under the RTI Act. The CIC reiterated that the RTI Act is not a tool for grievance redressal and advised the appellant to seek alternative remedies.
What This Means For Similar Cases
RTI Act Cannot Be Used for Grievance Redressal
The Commission's decision underscores that the RTI Act is not a substitute for grievance redressal mechanisms. Practitioners must advise clients that:
- Requests seeking justifications or explanations for administrative decisions are unlikely to succeed under the RTI Act.
- The RTI Act is designed to provide access to existing records, not to adjudicate disputes or demand explanations for decisions.
Definition of 'Information' Under Section 2(f) Is Narrow
The ruling clarifies that Section 2(f) of the RTI Act does not encompass justifications or reasoning behind decisions unless such reasoning is explicitly documented and maintained as part of the records. Public authorities may refuse to disclose:
- Internal deliberations or justifications for decisions that are not part of the official record.
- Information that promotes personal interests or is not in the public interest, as held in Dr. K.C. Vijayakumaran Nair v. Department of Post.
Alternative Remedies Must Be Explored
Practitioners should guide clients to explore appropriate forums for grievance redressal, such as:
- Internal grievance redressal mechanisms within public authorities.
- Service tribunals or administrative tribunals for employment-related disputes.
- Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for challenging arbitrary administrative actions.
The decision serves as a reminder that the RTI Act is a tool for transparency, not a panacea for all administrative disputes.
