Does Availability of Records Limit RTI Disclosures? CIC Clarifies NTPC’s Obligations

In a recent decision ( Hemant Mishra vs. NTPC Ltd. , Case No. CIC/NTPCO/A/2025/623423), the Central Information Commission (CIC) has reaffirmed a significant principle of the Right to Information Act, 2005: public authorities are not obligated to generate new data or compile information that is not maintained within their official records.

The Backdrop: A Demand for Labor Transparency

The case arose when the appellant, Hemant Mishra, filed an RTI application seeking detailed information regarding contract workers at the NTPC Singrauli Project (Stage-3 expansion). Specifically, the appellant requested: 1. The total number of contract workers engaged through agencies. 2. A breakdown identifying how many of these workers were from project-displaced families. 3. Information on the number of workers hailing from outside the district or the state.

The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) at NTPC provided data regarding the total headcount (503 workers via BHEL) but stated that the specific demographic and domicile data requested in points two and three was not available in their records.

Arguments: Transparency vs. Record Capability

The appellant argued that because the project management had previously conducted public hearings and promised priority employment to displaced families, such records must be accessible. Furthermore, the appellant contended that since police verification is a mandatory process, the relevant authorities should be able to deduce the regional or displaced status of their contract workforce.

Conversely, the respondent argued that NTPC acts within its capacity as a public authority but cannot disclose information that it does not possess. Counsel for NTPC clarified that while police verification is mandatory for security, there is no standardized internal method to classify or track a worker’s status as a "Project-Affected Person" (PAP) or their exact state of domicile within the contract labor management framework.

The Commission’s Ruling

Information Commissioner Jaya Varma Sinha observed that the CPIO’s response was line-by-line and consistent with the available records. The Commission emphasized that the RTI Act mandates the disclosure of existing information, not the creation or collation of data that the public authority is not required to maintain in that format.

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies the boundaries of an applicant's right: * "The Commission observes that a suitable pointwise reply based on available records and in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act was given by the CPIO." * "The Commission further observes that a revised reply, with respect to point no. 2 and 3... is more elaborate and is, therefore, treated as an updated reply." * The respondent noted that: "The Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional."

Conclusion and Impact

The appeal was ultimately disposed of, with the Commission finding no further action necessary. This ruling serves as a vital reminder for RTI users and public information officers alike: the statutory duty under the RTI Act is restricted to providing access to information that exists. When an authority can demonstrate that the requested dataset is not part of its official record-keeping, the request for such information falls outside the functional scope of the Act.