RTI Act Section 6(5) | SPIOs Must Obtain & Provide Information Even If Not Record Custodian; Unilateral Corrigenda Void : Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed that the duty of a Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005 is absolute and cannot be evaded on the ground of non-custodianship of records. This judgment clarifies a critical procedural gap in RTI implementation, ensuring that citizens’ constitutional right to information is not undermined by administrative inefficiencies or misaligned designations.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The writ petitioner, Sudipta Das, filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 10.10.2018 seeking specific information and supporting documents from a public authority under the School Education Department, West Bengal. The request was not responded to within the statutory 30-day period. The petitioner subsequently filed appeals before the First Appellate Authority and then the Second Appellate Authority, the West Bengal Information Commission.

Key Facts

• The application dated 10.10.2018 sought records relating to administrative and academic decisions at Belur High School (H.S.)
• No information was provided within 30 days as mandated under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act
• During the pendency of the second appeal, the information was eventually furnished to the petitioner on 20.12.2019
• The State Chief Information Commissioner, in an order dated 23.12.2019, directed the Principal Secretary, School Education Department to upgrade institutional websites for proactive disclosure as required under Section 4 of the RTI Act
• On 06.01.2020, a corrigendum was issued by the Deputy Secretary, West Bengal Information Commission, inserting the phrase "The matter is hereby disposed of and closed" into the 23.12.2019 order, effectively terminating the proceeding
• The petitioner challenged this corrigendum as a violation of statutory procedure and the intent of the original order
• The petitioner also contended that the Assistant Headmaster, not the Headmaster, was designated as the SPIO - despite Rule 23A of the Management of Sponsored Institutions (Secondary) Rules, 1972 (as amended by Notification No. 215-SE/S/10M-01/18 dated 08.03.2018) making the Headmaster the custodian of school records

Procedural History

• 10.10.2018: RTI application filed with SPIO, Belur High School
• 09.11.2018: Statutory 30-day period expired without response
• 15.12.2018: First appeal filed before First Appellate Authority
• 23.12.2019: Second Appellate Authority (State Chief Information Commissioner) passed order directing website upgrades and proactive disclosure
• 06.01.2020: Corrigendum issued by Deputy Secretary, WBIC, adding "The matter is hereby disposed of and closed" to the 23.12.2019 order
• 15.01.2020: Petitioner filed writ petition before Calcutta High Court challenging the corrigendum and seeking compliance with the 23.12.2019 order
• 08.04.2026: Hearing concluded and judgment delivered

The Parties' Positions

For the Petitioner

• The corrigendum of 06.01.2020 was procedurally invalid and undermined the binding nature of the 23.12.2019 order
• The designation of Assistant Headmaster as SPIO violated Rule 23A of the 1972 Rules, which vests custodianship of records in the Headmaster
• This misalignment rendered the SPIO functionally incapable of fulfilling statutory obligations, violating the spirit of the RTI Act
• The SPIO’s refusal to obtain information from the actual custodian (Headmaster) amounted to a denial of information

For the Respondent

• The information sought was eventually provided during the pendency of the appeal, rendering the petition infructuous
• The Information Commission has discretionary power under Section 19(8) to issue directions and close proceedings once the core grievance is resolved
• The corrigendum was a mere clerical correction to finalize the order
• No prejudice was caused to the petitioner since the information was supplied

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought:

• Setting aside of the corrigendum dated 06.01.2020
• Enforcement of the directions in the order dated 23.12.2019 regarding website upgrades and SPIO designation
• A direction to designate the Headmaster as SPIO in compliance with Rule 23A
• A declaration that the current practice of appointing non-custodians as SPIOs is illegal

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether a Public Information Officer (SPIO) can refuse to provide information under the RTI Act on the ground that he or she is not the custodian of the records, and whether the Information Commission may unilaterally terminate a proceeding by inserting a closing phrase into a prior order without notice or hearing.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

The petitioner relied on Section 7(1) and Section 5(3) of the RTI Act, which impose a duty on the SPIO to provide information and to seek assistance from other officers if necessary. He cited Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 to affirm that the RTI Act operationalizes the fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a). He argued that the SPIO’s role is not that of a passive gatekeeper but an active facilitator who must coordinate with custodians. The corrigendum, he submitted, violated principles of natural justice and rendered the earlier order nugatory without due process.

For the Respondent

The respondent contended that the RTI Act does not mandate the SPIO to be the custodian, and that the statutory framework allows for internal coordination. He emphasized that the petitioner received the information sought, thereby exhausting the remedy. The corrigendum, he argued, was a procedural formality to close a resolved matter and did not alter the substance of the 23.12.2019 order.

The Court's Analysis

The Court began by affirming that the right to information is a fundamental right flowing from Article 19(1)(a), as established in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975) 4 SCC 428 and People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 399. The RTI Act, the Court held, is not merely a procedural statute but a constitutional enabler.

"The SPIO acts within the four corners of such procedural framework to uphold the Constitutional right and guarantee to a citizen."

The Court examined Section 5(1) and Section 5(4), which permit the SPIO to seek assistance from other officers for discharging duties. It concluded that the statutory obligation to provide information is not contingent on physical possession of records. The SPIO is empowered - and indeed required - to obtain information from custodians within the same public authority.

"Therefore, unless and until the relevant office, officer, or individual who is the custodian of the relevant document or information, submits a written report to the SPIO to that effect, the SPIO should not refuse to provide information under the aforementioned statute, on the grounds of not being custodian of the document or information."

The Court rejected the argument that the corrigendum was a mere clerical correction. It held that inserting a phrase that terminates a proceeding without notice or opportunity to be heard violates natural justice and undermines the authority’s own order. The Commission’s discretion under Section 19(8) cannot be exercised arbitrarily to extinguish binding directions.

The Court further noted that while the petitioner’s original grievance was resolved by the belated supply of information, the systemic issue - the misdesignation of SPIO - remained unaddressed. However, the Court observed that in this specific case, the Headmaster of Belur High School was already named as a party and was the designated SPIO, thereby resolving the petitioner’s specific complaint about custodianship.

The Verdict

The writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:

• The Law Officer/State Public Information Officer, West Bengal Information Commission, shall dispose of the petitioner’s pending RTI application dated 02.01.2020 within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment
• All pending applications in WPA 1439 of 2020 are dismissed as infructuous
• No costs are awarded

What This Means For Similar Cases

SPIOs Must Act as Coordinators, Not Gatekeepers

• Practitioners must now argue that any refusal by an SPIO to provide information on grounds of non-custodianship is legally unsustainable
• RTI applications should be accompanied by a demand for proof of internal coordination attempts if information is withheld
• Failure to seek assistance from custodians may attract penalties under Section 20(1)

Corrigenda Cannot Terminate Binding Orders Without Due Process

• Information Commissions cannot unilaterally amend or close orders by inserting closing phrases without notice or hearing
• Any modification to a substantive order must follow principles of natural justice and be subject to appeal
• Petitioners may challenge such corrigenda as procedural fraud or abuse of power

Designation of SPIO Must Align with Institutional Rules

• Where institutional rules designate a specific officer as custodian (e.g., Headmaster under Rule 23A), that officer must be designated as SPIO
• Appointing junior staff as SPIOs in defiance of statutory rules constitutes systemic non-compliance
• Such practices may be challenged in writ petitions seeking structural reform under Article 226