ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.06.2022 seeking information on the following points:

a) “Please provide me the name & designation of the erring official of the bank who refused to accept the Re-KYC forms and informed me that the said dormant account cannot be activated without my Aadhaar Card even though I had produced my PAN, Voter ID & Driving License along with their respective originals.

b) Please provide me the name & designation of the erring official of the bank who was seated in the cubicle just at the entrance of the branch (diagonally opposite the Branch Head's cabin) who in a very harsh, rude, insulting & arrogant manner on top of his voice disrespectfully shouted at me & informed that he & this branch do not follow the law laid by the Supreme Court and that the account will not be activated without the production of Aadhaar card and in a very disrespecting and shamefully manner asked me to go out of the branch by pointing his finger towards the door of the bank c) Please provide me the CCTV footage (audio & video), dated: 08.06.2022 between 10.30 AM to 11.00 AM of the common public area of the branch of the bank located at 701L, Dr. Brownamma Towers, Mission Road, Bangalore -

560027 showing me entering as well exiting the branch & the entire interaction I had with the above two erring officials of the bank d) Please provide me duly attested/certified copies of all circulars/instructions/notifications/guidelines issued by the Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd wherein it is held that production of Aadhaar card is mandatory requirement towards Re-KYC even though the PAN, Voter ID & Driving License has been furnished along with the respective originals by the account holder in-person. e) Please provide me duly attested/certified copies of the file along with file noting issued by the Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd regarding mandatory requirement of Aadhaar card towards Re-KYC even though the PAN, Voter ID & Driving License has been furnished along with the respective originals by the account holder in-person.” etc.

2. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 31.07.2022. The FAA vide order dated 20.08.2022 stated as under:-

“In respect of pleas raised by you in paras 01, 02, 03 & 04, it is found that the application is in nature of complaint and doesn’t seek any specific information under RTI Act, 2005. However, your grievances were addressed at branch level and your account number XXXXXXXXXXXX0461 has already been activated without AADHAAR.

Further, the information regarding Vigilance Officer & lnternal Ombudsman is as under:..”

3. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.11.2022.

4. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Tanya, Advocate & Rep. of CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

5. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided by the FAA. 6. The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that barring para (g) and (h) of the RTI Application, the Appellant has not sought for any information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has merely sought for answers to speculative queries and expressed conjecture, therefore the observation of the FAA stating the queries to be in the nature of a complaint cannot be faulted. For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. In this regard, the Appellant’s attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on