Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Aditya Kala, Adv. with Mr.Satish Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Atul Bandhu, Adv.

No, the provided legal document does not indicate that a thumb impression alone can be obtained under the Right to Information Act.

• The Right to Information Act is referenced among the acts cited in the judgment but without specific sections or discussion [judgement_act_referred].
• An exhibit (DW1/25) consists of a copy of information supplied under the RTI Act, specifically a police inquiry report dated 01.03.2012 from the office of the Additional DCP (Central Public Information Officer), West District, regarding an inquiry by SI Ram Bhau [11000574110033] (!) [11000574110032].
• Thumb impressions are mentioned solely in the context of signatures on the appellant's original registered documents (Ex.PW1/1 to PW1/5, including GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Possession Letter, and Will), where the court compared them to admitted signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act for authentication [11000574110044][11000574110047] (!) .
• No connection is made between thumb impressions and RTI disclosures; the RTI exhibit pertains only to a police report, not personal biometric data like thumb impressions [11000574110033] (!) .
• The judgment emphasizes proof of documents via registration, witnesses, and court comparison, not public disclosure under RTI [11000574110036][11000574110037][11000574110047].