Clarificatory Queries Do Not Constitute 'Information' Under Section 2(f) of RTI Act: Central Information Commission - 2026-06-08

Seeking Clarity vs. Seeking Facts: CIC Defines Limits of the RTI Act

In a recent batch of 11 complaints clubbed together for decision, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has reaffirmed the boundaries of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Presided over by Hon’ble Commissioner Anandi Ramalingam, the Commission addressed whether administrative bodies are obligated to provide opinions or clarifications under the guise of an RTI request, alongside deliberations on minor administrative delays in the appellate process.

The Backdrop: A Prolific Applicant

The complainant, M. Muniyappan, filed 11 separate RTI applications addressed to various divisions of the Department of Posts. The core of his queries revolved around procedures for Annual Performance Assessment Reports (APAR), specifically asking for interpretations on whether qualities could be graded identically without individual analysis and whether an implicit "balance" could be assumed in employee performance if identical marks were awarded.

After receiving replies, the complainant alleged that the information provided was incomplete or misleading. His primary grievance before the Commission, however, shifted to the timing of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) decisions, which he claimed were delayed, and he urged the Commission to initiate action against the FAA.

Defining "Information" Under Section 2(f)

The respondent CPIOs consistently maintained that the complainant was seeking the "opinion" of the public authority rather than factual records. Citing established precedents, they argued that the RTI Act does not require a public authority to furnish information that necessitates drawing inferences, making assumptions, or providing subjective advice.

The Commission echoed this stance. In its decision, the CIC clarified that queries asking "whether same marks can be given" or "if we can assume employees maintain balance" are, by nature, clarificatory and fall outside the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which defines "information" as material available in the records.

Analyzing Procedural Lapses

Regarding the complainant's allegation of delays in the disposal of his First Appeals, the Commission conducted a thorough review of the timelines. It noted that the alleged delays—ranging between one to three days—were purely administrative in nature and did not impede the complainant's fundamental right to access information.

Crucially, the Commission held that the RTI Act lacks provisions to initiate punitive action against an FAA, further underscoring that the complaints were devoid of merit.

Key Observations

The judgment serves as a reminder of the distinction between factual disclosure and subjective inquiry. Commissioner Anandi Ramalingam noted:

• On the scope of RTI: "The queries raised at points 3 and 4 of the RTI application, which are clarificatory in nature and do not fall within the ambit of 'information' as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act."
• On FAA accountability: "The RTI Act does not contain any provision for initiating action against the First Appellate Authority as prayed by the Complainant."

A Firm Rejection

In a decisive conclusion, the Commission set aside a previous order where an FAA had erroneously directed a CPIO to provide "available information" on clarificatory points, noting it was passed "without application of mind." Ultimately, the Commission rejected all 11 complaints, reaffirming that while the RTI Act is a powerful tool for transparency, it cannot be weaponized to demand subjective reasoning or opinions from public officials.

For the Department of Posts and other public authorities, the judgment provides a clear mandate: stick to the records. For applicants, it serves as a reality check: the Act is for facts, not for interpretations.