The RTI Act does not obligate public authorities to provide justifications or reasons for actions taken, as these do not constitute 'information' under Section 2(f).

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.11.2022 seeking the following information regarding non delivery of ATM cum Debit Card and deactivation of INB:

(i) “What is the reason for delivery of atm cum debit card in respect of Sudhanshu Kumar Sinha having SB account no 108XXXXXX0 on 01.01.2021 but it has been received by the bank on 24.08.2020. (ii) What is the reason for activation of atm cum debit card in respect of Sudhanshu Kumar Sinha having SB account no 108XXXXXX00 in October 2021 but it has been delivered to him by the bank on 01.01.2021. (iii) What is the reason for deactivation of INB by bank in respect of Sudhanshu Kumar Sinha having SB account no 108XXXXXX0 for more than two years.

(iv) Any action taken by the bank in this regard then please provide the copy of report if any.

(v) Please inform number of the correspondence made by Sudhanshu Kumar Sinha having SB account no 108XXXXXXX0 in this regard till now.”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 14.12.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:- “Point (i), (ii) & (iii) – The reply has already been provided to you vide letter no BMSL/2020-21/144 dated 30.01.2021. Point (iv) – Bank already initiated the investigation regarding this matter and submitted the report to the competent authority. As it is bank’s internal investigation so it is confidential and cannot be disclose.

Point (v) – Bank always provide the receipt for any communication from the customer as per their demand at the time of receiving any correspondence.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.12.2022. The FAA vide order dated 13.01.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

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

5. The Appellant was present through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Subhashish Das, Regional Manager & CPIO along with Bhavik Laha attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO on point no.1

of the RTI Application.

7. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the Appellant is harping on a grievance and not seeking access to information as envisaged under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. 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. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:

“2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— (f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;..” In this regard, the Appellant’s attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:

“35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing………A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor