Information Held by Public Authority: CIC Defines Limits of RTI Act Duties Under Section 6(3) - 2026-06-02

Laws, Courts & Judgments.

Transparency Limits: CIC Rules on the Scope of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act

In a recent ruling, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has provided significant clarity regarding the duties of public authorities under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The decision, led by Chief Information Commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal, addresses the common practice of transferring RTI applications when the requested information pertains to a different department.

The Background: Accountability and Ambiguity

The appellant, Gupteshwar Singh, filed an RTI application on October 9, 2024, addressed to the Lt. Governor’s Secretariat, Delhi. The request sought detailed information regarding a police officer (ASI Arun), including reasons for his non-transfer, his service file details, and broader inquiries about police rotation policies and criminal cases recorded at the Majnu Ka Tila police station.

When the Lt. Governor’s Secretariat failed to provide the specific administrative records requested, Mr. Singh viewed this as a deficiency. Following a transfer of his application to the Delhi Police headquarters under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, the appellant filed a first appeal. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the transfer, confirming that the information was held by the Delhi Police department, not the Secretariat.

Core Legal Arguments

The appellant challenged the decision, arguing that the Lt. Governor's Secretariat bore responsibility for answering the grievances regarding police conduct.

In contrast, the Lt. Governor’s Secretariat maintained that they had followed due process. Upon receipt of the application, they provided the available relevant records and promptly transferred the remainder of the request to the Delhi Police (PHQ) as the primary custodian of police service files. The Delhi Police subsequently confirmed receipt of the transferred application and provided information consistent with their record-keeping.

Legal Analysis: The Scope of Section 2(j)

The Commission focused on the definition of "information" under Section 2(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC reiterated that a Public Information Officer (PIO) is only mandated to provide information that exists in material form within the records of their respective authority.

The Commission noted that when a request concerns the internal operations of a department other than the recipient office, the PIO is legally empowered to transfer the application under Section 6(3). Because the Secretariat had facilitated this transfer and the police had responded accordingly, the Commission found no grounds to hold the initial office in default.

Key Observations

The Commission emphasized the limitations of the RTI process in relation to administrative record-keeping:

• "A Public Information Officer can only provide information available in the form of material in the records of the concerned authority."
• "The PIO, Lt. Governor's Secretariat, has provided factual information based on records to the appellant."
• "The Commission is of the view that the PIO, Lt. Governor's Secretariat, has effectively disposed of the RTI application in accordance with the provisions of the Act."

The Verdict: Finality of the Ruling

Concluding the case, Chief Information Commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal dismissed the second appeal. The ruling serves as a vital reminder that while the RTI Act is a tool for transparency, it does not compel public authorities to create new data or serve as a clearinghouse for information outside their jurisdiction. By upholding the legality of the transfer under Section 6(3), the CIC has reinforced the standard procedure for inter-departmental RTI inquiries, ensuring that citizens engage with the specific office that maintains custody of the requested records.