The Central Information Commission has clarified that requests seeking reasons behind administrative actions - such as why an advisory was issued or withdrawn - are not actionable under the Right to Information Act, 2005. This ruling reinforces the boundary between seeking factual records and demanding explanatory justifications, setting a critical precedent for public authorities and applicants alike.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Kamran Khan, filed an RTI application on 27 August 2024 seeking detailed explanations regarding the issuance and subsequent withdrawal of an advisory by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) concerning the marketing of milk and milk products under A1 and A2 protein labels. The queries specifically demanded justification for the agency’s reversal of position within five days, implying potential external influence and questioning FSSAI’s credibility.
Procedural History
The case progressed through three tiers of RTI redressal:
- 27 August 2024: RTI application filed online seeking four specific clarifications on FSSAI’s advisory.
- 23 September 2024: CPIO rejected the request, citing DoPT Guidelines that prohibit creation or interpretation of information.
- 1 October 2024: First Appellate Authority upheld the CPIO’s response, stating public authorities are not obligated to justify administrative decisions.
- 6 October 2024: Second Appeal filed before the Central Information Commission.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought disclosure of the rationale behind FSSAI’s advisory and its withdrawal, arguing transparency was essential to assess whether consumer welfare was compromised by corporate pressure.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether requests seeking the "why" behind administrative decisions - such as the issuance or withdrawal of an advisory - constitute "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, or whether they amount to impermissible demands for opinion, justification, or inference.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant contended that the FSSAI’s reversal of its advisory within a week raised legitimate public concerns about regulatory integrity. He argued that the rationale for such decisions, if recorded, must be disclosed under Section 2(f) as it relates to the functioning of a public authority. He relied on the spirit of transparency enshrined in the RTI Act and cited precedents where courts have mandated disclosure of decision-making processes.
For the Respondent
The CPIO argued that the information sought did not exist in recorded form and required interpretation, inference, or justification beyond the scope of the Act. Citing DoPT Guidelines and judicial precedents, the respondent maintained that Section 2(f) only covers existing, documented records - not explanations, opinions, or reasons for actions not formally recorded.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission examined the nature of the information sought and determined that the appellant’s queries were not requests for factual records but demands for justification and reasoning. It emphasized that Section 2(f) defines information as "any material in any form," but this does not extend to creating answers to hypothetical or interpretive questions.
"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' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant."
The Commission relied on CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay to affirm that the RTI Act does not compel authorities to explain policy decisions unless such reasoning is formally documented. It further cited Dr. Celsa Pinto v. Goa State Information Commission to reinforce that asking "why" a decision was made falls outside the definition of information, as it enters the domain of adjudication and subjective justification.
The Commission noted that while transparency is vital, the RTI Act is not a tool for interrogating administrative discretion. The absence of a recorded rationale does not equate to non-disclosure; it simply means the information does not exist in a form the Act obliges disclosure of.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The Commission held that requests seeking justification for administrative actions - such as why an advisory was issued or withdrawn - are not "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, and public authorities are under no obligation to generate or articulate such reasoning unless it is formally documented.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Justifications Are Not Information
- Practitioners must distinguish between requesting records and demanding explanations; the latter will be rejected under Section 2(f).
- Applicants seeking to challenge administrative decisions should file writ petitions under Article 226, not RTI applications.
- Public authorities may continue to deny RTI requests for "why" questions without violating the Act, provided they cite CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay.
Documentation Is Key to Transparency
- If an agency intends to justify its decisions publicly, it must record those reasons in official files - otherwise, they remain legally inaccessible under RTI.
- Departments should institutionalize internal memo systems for policy reversals to preempt future litigation.
- Legal advisors should counsel clients to request specific documents (e.g., meeting minutes, draft advisories) rather than open-ended justifications.
RTI Is Not a Tool for Policy Scrutiny
- The RTI Act is not a substitute for parliamentary oversight, judicial review, or media inquiry.
- Applicants must frame requests around existing records: reports, emails, files, or minutes - not opinions or motives.
- This ruling curbs misuse of RTI as a mechanism to pressure agencies into defending policy choices without due process.
