RTI Act Limits: When Records Vanish, Can Information Be Compelled?

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has reaffirmed a fundamental boundary of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, ruling that a public authority cannot be compelled to create information that does not exist or to produce records that have been lawfully destroyed under standard archival policies.

The decision, delivered by Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari, effectively dismissed an appeal filed by Deep Narayan Gupta against the Indian Army, bringing closure to a dispute over records related to a 2019 vehicular accident.

The Backdrop: A Hunt for Records

The appellant, Deep Narayan Gupta, sought extensive details regarding a purported 2019 accident involving a Military Engineering Services (MES) vehicle. His RTI application requested the "Court of Inquiry" report, "In/Out" register entries, military police reports, and the identities of personnel on duty during the incident.

After receiving no initial response from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) at Station Headquarters Silchar, and an unsatisfactory response from the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the appellant moved to the CIC. The appellant maintained that he was being misled regarding the existence and disposal of these sensitive operational documents.

The Conflict of Disclosure vs. Policy

The Indian Army, represented by Col. Shubhendu Bose, argued that the requested records simply did not exist within the Station Headquarters’ records. Relying on the Regulations for the Army (DSR) (Revised Edition-1987) , specifically Paragraph 596, the respondent explained that routine correspondence and administrative logs are subject to a mandatory three-year retention period, after which they are disposed of by destruction.

The appellant contended that if the records were indeed destroyed, there should be a formal "Board of Officers" certificate documenting the destruction. He challenged the lack of transparency, arguing that the records should have been preserved or better accounted for by the 39 Field Regiment and the 57 Mountain Division Provost Unit.

Key Observations

The Commission’s analysis focused on the statutory scope of the RTI Act:

• On the nature of RTI: "Under the RTI Act, 2005, a Public Authority is obligated to provide only the information that exists and is available on record. It is not required to create information or provide justification or interpretation."
• On evidence of disposal: The Respondent demonstrated that they went beyond the initial mandate by forwarding the queries to relevant units, noting: "The Appellant is free to approach them as they are different public authority."
• On the lack of bad faith: "The Commission finds no mala fide intention or deliberate denial of information on part of the Respondent."

The Verdict and Its Implications

Dismissing the appeal, the CIC concluded that the absence of the requested records was a result of the expiration of mandatory retention periods rather than an attempt to suppress information.

This judgment serves as a significant reminder for RTI applicants and public officials alike: while the law is designed to ensure transparency, it is bounded by the practical reality of administrative record-keeping. Public authorities are held accountable for what they currently possess; they are not required to retroactively maintain or create files that have already succumbed to mandated destruction cycles. For the Indian Army and other similar public bodies, the ruling underscores that as long as archival policies are followed in good faith, the law does not view the absence of legacy records as a violation of the RTI Act.