CIC Rules Delhi Police Not Liable for Non-Existence of Records: RTI Appeal Dismissed in Case No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2025/101029 - 2026-06-04

When Silence Speaks: CIC Upholds Delhi Police Stance on Non-Existent Records

In a definitive ruling that reinforces the functional boundaries of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has dismissed an appeal filed by an applicant seeking information regarding a 2013 FIR. The Commission emphasized that public authorities are only tasked with providing records as they exist, confirming that the law cannot compel the production of information that has no presence in official archives.

The Quest for a Decade-Old FIR

The appellant, Amit, had filed an RTI application in September 2024, seeking granular details related to FIR No. 711/13, registered at the Mangolpuri police station . His queries ranged from the exact time and date of the FIR's registration to the details of arrests made and, significantly, a request for CCTV footage covering a physical altercation that allegedly resulted in a death in 2013.

The Delhi Police responded in October 2024, providing details regarding the filing of the FIR, the names of the accused, and the status of the complainant. Crucially, regarding the request for CCTV footage, the police stated that no CCTV cameras were installed on the Mangolpuri police station premises in 2013, and no such record existed.

Escalation and the Commission’s Stand

Dissatisfied with the response, particularly the lack of CCTV evidence, the appellant escalated the matter to the First Appellate Authority and eventually to the Central Information Commission . During the hearing, the respondent—represented by officers from the Mangolpuri police station and the Outer District RTI cell —reiterated that all available information had been furnished to the appellant in accordance with existing departmental records.

The appellant, despite notice, failed to appear before the Commission. Noting the absence, the CIC proceeded based on the existing case files and submissions provided by the respondent.

Legal Reasoning: The Limits of Information Disclosure

Chief Information Commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal underscored a fundamental principle of the RTI Act. Referencing Section 2(j) of the RIT Act, 2005 , the judgment articulated that an Information Officer is only obligated to provide access to materials or records already available in the custody of the public authority.

The order makes it clear: the RTI Act serves as a gateway to existing information, not a tool for the creation of new documentation or the recovery of footage that does not exist in the police's repository.

Key Observations

The Commission’s decision highlights the threshold of accountability for public bodies:

• "Under the provisions of Section 2(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 , a Public Information Officer can only provide information that is available as material in the records of the concerned authority."
• "The Commission is of the view that the appellant has been provided with all the information available in the records, which is eligible to be provided under the Act."
• "There is no requirement for the Commission to intervene in the present matter."

Final Verdict: Closure of the Case

Concluding that the Delhi Police had fulfilled its mandate by providing all relevant and existing information, the CIC dismissed the appeal. The ruling serves as a reminder to RTI applicants that while the Act is a powerful instrument of transparency, it operates within the constraints of bureaucratic documentation. When records are verifiably absent—such as the lack of surveillance infrastructure at a specific location—the law does not hold the public authority liable for the void.