Transparency Limits: CIC Clarifies the Scope of Public Authority Obligations Under RTI

In a significant ruling, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has reaffirmed the boundaries of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, clarifying that public authorities are not required to generate, collect, or process data that remains outside their existing official records. The decision came in the case of Dr. Suresh Bablani vs. National Council for Promotion of Sindhi Language (NCPSL) , presided over by Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi.

The Conflict: Seeking Documentation of Administrative Processes

The dispute arose when Dr. Suresh Bablani filed an RTI application in August 2024, requesting extensive information regarding the NCPSL’s publication committee proceedings, copies of honorarium bills for various experts, and internal 'Office Notes' concerning his previous correspondence.

The Appellant’s dissatisfaction with the initial responses from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) led to a Second Appeal. The Appellant argued that the requested details regarding internal committee deliberations and staff correspondence were withheld despite their relevance to transparent governance.

Arguments from the Floor: Transparency vs. Administrative Reality

The NCPSL maintained that they had provided all available pertinent records. Regarding the demand for internal office notes and specific staff involvement, the representative for the Respondent clarified that the delegation of tasks for internal office correspondence is a dynamic, routine administrative function, not a formal record-generating process. They emphasized that the Appellant had been offered an inspection of records, an opportunity he had previously declined.

During the hearing, the Commissioner facilitated a session where the Respondent, showing flexibility, provided a revised response to clarify remaining queries without creating new data.

Legal Analysis: The Threshold of Information Disclosure

The Commission’s ruling rests on a fundamental legal tenet: the RTI Act is an instrument to access existing information, not a mandate for public bodies to perform research or create new documents.

Central to this reasoning was the reliance on the Delhi High Court ’s judgment in The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 6634/2011]. In that precedent, the Court established that public authorities are under no legal obligation to process raw information to form a new record if that processed information does not currently exist.

Key Observations

The Commission's order highlighted the following critical points:

• "The Commission also notes that the CPIO can only provide such information as is held in the office record, and as a matter of fact, he is not obligated to create information under the mandate of RTI Act, 2005."
• Referencing legal precedent: "The Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it."
• "There is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant."

Final Decision and Implications

Finding no infirmity in the NCPSL's disclosures, the Commission disposed of the appeal. The ruling serves as a reminder to RTI applicants that while the Act promotes access to government transparency, it maintains a pragmatic line against the burden of administrative creation of new documents. For public information officers, the ruling provides a necessary shield in managing requests that extend beyond the scope of existing statutory filings.

The Appellant’s primary goal of understanding the status of his various manuscripts and the proceedings of the Council was addressed through the procedural revisions offered post-hearing, bringing the matter to a definitive close.