Central Information Commission Reaffirms RTI Limits: Public Authorities Need Not Provide Opinions - 2026-06-08

Beyond the Scope: CIC Defines Limits of RTI Act in Credit Reporting Disputes

In a significant order, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has reaffirmed the procedural boundaries of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Presided over by Information Commissioner Anandi Ramalingam, the Commission dismissed a series of appeals and complaints filed by one G. Sankar against the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), clarifying that the RTI Act does not compel public authorities to provide deductions, inferences, or legal opinions.

The Backdrop: A Quest for Clarification

The dispute arose from multiple RTI applications filed by the appellant regarding his credit history. G. Sankar sought to challenge entries in his CIBIL report, specifically protesting the presence of an overdraft account allegedly linked to ICICI Bank. Beyond requesting records, his applications demanded that the RBI provide explanations, interpretations of banking acts, and justifications for why specific loan accounts were or were not reflected in his credit profile.

The RBI’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) maintained that much of the sought-after information was either unavailable or fell outside the purview of the RTI Act, as the queries were based on conjecture and required the public authority to offer opinions rather than provide existing records.

The Core Legal Question: What Constitutes ‘Information’?

The central tension in this case lies in the definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Does the right to access information extend to forcing a public authority to interpret law or justify its administrative decisions?

The Commission’s analysis focused on whether the CPIO’s refusal to answer speculative queries—or queries requiring the CPIO to draw inferences—was legally sound. The RBI argued that it acts as a regulator and cannot be expected to act as an advisory body for individual credit disputes between citizens and financial institutions.

Key Observations: The Legal Standard

The CIC relied on well-established Supreme Court precedents to guide its decision, emphasizing that public authorities are not required to provide advice or opinion. Commissioner Ramalingam highlighted several pivotal observations:

• On the nature of 'Information': Referring to CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay , the Commission noted: "The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing… public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions."
• On the role of the CPIO: Drawing from Khanapuram Gandaiah vs. Administrative Officer & Ors. , the Commission held: "Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law."
• On justifications: Citing Dr. Celsa Pinto vs. The Goa State Information Commission , the Commission stated: "The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question 'why' which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing."

A Ruling on Judicial Boundaries

The Commission underscored that the RTI process should not be converted into an adjudicatory forum for private disputes. Relying on the Delhi High Court's ruling in Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank , the Commission noted that RTI proceedings cannot replace the legal mechanisms designed to resolve grievances about the correctness of information.

The Decision: Setting Boundaries for Future Disputes

The CIC dismissed all appeals and complaints, ruling that the CPIO had acted in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The order serves as a reminder to applicants that the RTI Act is a tool for accessing existing records held by public authorities, not a mechanism for soliciting expert opinion or forcing an agency to resolve personal credit grievances. For future litigants, this serves as a clear indicator: inquiries must focus on existing documentation, as the Commission will not intervene to extract "justifications" or "deductions" from public officials.