Back
: No Policy Number? No Problem—But Bring Your Personal Details for LIC RTI Queries
In a practical nod to policyholder rights amid massive data challenges, the has ruled that customers can seek policy details under the without providing a policy number. However, they'll need to furnish basic identifying information like name, date of birth, gender, address, mobile number, email, and bank account details. A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed an by Ambika Gupta against a Single Judge's order in Ambika Gupta v. CPIO LIC of India (LPA 113/2026), affirming that LIC's enormous database makes vague requests unfeasible.
A Policy Hunt Begins: RTI Without the Key Identifier
The saga started in
when appellant Ambika Gupta filed an RTI application with LIC's Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), requesting a
"detail list of all the policies wherein I am the insured party made at any point in time during my lifetime."
No policy numbers were provided—just supporting documents.
LIC's CPIO replied promptly on
:
"The base of LIC is the policy number issued to the life assured, without policy number we are unable to provide you information sought."
This was upheld by the First Appellate Authority on
.
Undeterred, Gupta escalated to the . On , the CIC directed LIC to create systems for retrieving policy data without numbers, especially in "urgent situations," and ordered disclosure to Gupta within four weeks. Copies went to LIC's Managing Director for action.
LIC challenged this via ( ). The Single Judge, in an order dated , acknowledged the need for tech upgrades but refrained from mandating them, citing LIC's vast, partly undigitized records. Gupta got liberty to refile with details—and LIC even provided two matured policy details on , after she shared personal info during proceedings.
Gupta appealed, arguing the writ exceeded scope and violated finality and bar on court interference.
Gupta's Plea: Enforce CIC's Mandate, Protect Against Hidden Policies
Appearing in person, Gupta contended the Single Judge overstepped by modifying the CIC's "binding" order. She invoked RTI Act provisions: CIC decisions are final, and courts can't question them except via appeal. Without jurisdictional error, no lay. She sought enforcement of CIC directions, guidelines against insurance misuse (like fraud or identity theft), and compensation.
LIC's Reality Check: 27 Crore Policies Can't Be Scoured Blindly
LIC countered that its systems already allow searches with personal details—name, DOB, gender, address, PIN, mobile, email, NEFT bank account. It services over 27 crore live policies from a 72 crore record database; manual hunts without identifiers are impossible. CIC directions were advisory, not mandatory. Sensitive data disclosure risks endangering lives if mishandled.
As news reports noted, the Single Judge had directed LIC to "explore" info provision during hearings, leading to Gupta's two policies surfacing—both matured and paid out years ago.
Court's Balanced Verdict: Rights Yes, But Reasonably Exercised
The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge, stressing practicality. under trumps RTI Act's "finality" clauses— is a constitutional bedrock, not ousted by statute.
Key reasoning: Insureds might not know policy numbers (e.g., secret policies), but personal details are
"presumed to be within the knowledge"
of seekers. Without them, sifting 27 crore policies is "difficult; rather impossible."
CIC's system-building advice was just that—advisory. RTI mandates disclosure unless exempted, but requests need feasibility. No bar on info access; just furnish details.
"No prejudice is caused to the appellant,"
the Bench concluded, dismissing the appeal on
, with no costs.
Key Observations from the Bench -
On Feasibility
:
"In absence of certain details, it will be difficult; rather impossible to retrieve any information sought in respect of a particular policy."
-
Presumed Knowledge
:
"The details regarding insured party’s name, date of birth, gender, address with pin code, mobile number, email id and bank account number as registered under NEFT are such details which can be presumed to be within the knowledge of the person seeking the information."
-
Writ Power Intact
:
"Finality attached to an order under any enactment will not be a bar for this Court to exercise its
under
...
is one of the
."
-
No Absolute Mandate
:
"Learned Single Judge has correctly refrained himself from passing any mandatory direction to the respondent-CPIO... it is for the respondent to maintain their records."
Implications: Smarter RTI, Safer Data for Millions
This ruling streamlines RTI for genuine policyholders while shielding LIC from untenable burdens. Future seekers: skip the policy number, but pack your ID details. It underscores RTI's balance—transparency meets operational reality—and may prompt LIC digitization pushes. For the 27 crore policyholders, it's a clearer path to their financial histories, minus wild goose chases.
