When "No Information" is a Valid Response: CIC Clarifies Boundaries of the RTI Act

In a recent ruling that reinforces the functional limitations of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has dismissed an appeal filed by Hemant Mishra against the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (NTPC). The case highlights a recurring tension between the public’s right to oversight and the jurisdictional limits of individual public authorities.

Unearthing the Dispute

The matter originated from an RTI application filed by the appellant on December 17, 2024, concerning the alleged encroachment and maintenance of the "Jwalamukhi Cave," a site of religious and mythological significance. The appellant sought detailed records of actions taken by the Ministry of Power regarding the protection and preservation of the landmark.

Upon receiving the application, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) at NTPC provided a direct response, noting that the information requested—specifically, the actions taken at the ministerial level—was not held by their office in Singrauli. Unconvinced, the appellant pursued a first appeal, followed by a second appeal before the Commission, alleging a lack of transparency.

Arguments from the Fringes of Grievance

The appellant argued that the matter involved the protection of national heritage and that the relevant Information should have been obtained from the Ministry of Power for his benefit. He contended that the failure to act on these concerns undermined the spirit of the RTI Act.

Conversely, the respondent, represented by Sh. Vikash Kumar, CPIO-cum-DGM, maintained that the requested information was simply not available within the project’s records. Furthermore, the respondent pointed out a troubling pattern, noting that the appellant had filed over 100 RTI applications—92 of which had reached the second appeal stage—suggesting the process was being utilized for personal grievances rather than the legitimate acquisition of public knowledge.

Legal Analysis: The Bounds of Disclosure

The Commission’s analysis centered on the statutory duties of a CPIO. Under the RTI Act, a public authority is required to provide access to information that exists in its material records. It is not fundamentally mandated to create new reports, conduct investigations into external ministry activities for the applicant, or act as a clearinghouse for information outside its operational jurisdiction.

The ruling emphasizes that the RTI Act is a tool for transparency, not an alternative mechanism for personal grievance redressal. By failing to appear during the scheduled hearing to contest the respondent’s position, the appellant weakened his case, leaving the Commission to rely firmly on the documentation and submissions provided by the respondent.

Key Observations

The Commission’s decision was underlined by several critical observations regarding the intent and application of the Act:

• On Availability: "The Respondent submitted that information sought in the RTI application is not available and the same was furnished in the reply dated 08.01.2025."
• On Process Adherence: "The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, observes that a suitable reply based on available records and in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act was furnished by the CPIO."
• On the Use of RTI: "This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizen and not to settle grievance."

Final Verdict: Reaffirming Institutional Limits

In its final decision, the Central Information Commission concluded that since the CPIO had provided a response based on available records and in accordance with the law, no further intervention was warranted. The appeal was summarily disposed of, signaling a firm stance against the overuse of the RTI framework for inquiries that fall outside the reasonable scope of a specific public authority’s records.

For practitioners and applicants alike, this judgment serves as a reminder that the transparency mandated by the RTI Act remains tethered to the physical and administrative reality of the records held by the authorities themselves.