The RTI Act does not require public authorities to provide clarifications or situational information, as these do not fall under the definition of 'information' per Section 2(f).

O R D E R

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai seeking following information:-

1. “Reasons for closure of his agency code.

2. Whether any micro branch may be opened in Basti.

3. Contact details of agents working in Basti.

4. Tentative date of furnishing appointment letter and ID card to the appellant.

5. How many meetings are mandatory at the Branch level for LIC agents?

Etc.”

2. The CPIO responded on 19-11-2019 & 15-05-2021. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 27-07-2019 which was not disposed of by the first appellate authority. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/ Section 19 (3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/ Section 2 0 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant, Mr. Ganesh Prasad Chaurasiya attended the hearing through audio conferencing. Mr. Anurag Varshney, CPIO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.

4. The appellant expressed dissatisfaction with the reply given by the CPIO and further stated that the respondent should be directed to provide clarification on his queries.

5. The respondent contended that the queries raised by the appellant are clarificatory in nature which are not covered within the definition of ‘information’ as per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Nonetheless, they have provided him a point-wise reply to the appellant vide their letter dated 19-11-2019 thereby claiming exemption u/ Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 with regard to contact details of other individuals. The given reply was also read out by the respondent.

Decision:

6. This Commission observes that the appellant herein attempts to elicit answers to his situational queries with regard to ‘closure of his agency code, tentative date of furnishing appointment letter and ID card, no. of meetings mandatory at the Branch level for LIC agents etc.’ Therefore, the CPIO is not supposed to interpret information; or to furnish replies to situational queries; or to furnish clarifications. Hence, the queries seeking answers and explanations from the CPIO are not covered within the definition of ‘information’ u/ Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Disclosure of the contact details of other individuals would cause unwarranted invasion of their privacy and hence, the exemption claimed by the CPIO u/ Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 is justified. Accordingly, this Commission upholds the contentions put forth by the CPIO. In this regard, the Commission refers to the definition of ‘information’ u/s Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:-

“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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.”

Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:-

“(j) right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........”

In this context, a reference is also made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors , 2011 (8) SCC 497,where