The definitions of information under the RTI Act do not include ambiguous queries or requests for justification, affirming the boundaries of public information authorities.

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 20.10.2023 seeking the following information:

“1. I, Amanpreet Singh Gill Son of Mr. Gurpreet Singh Gill resident of House No 229 Sector 16 A Chandigarh wish to seek information under RTI Act, 2005 . The information needed pertains to:-

(a) Can Call Detail Records (CDR) and the Customer Application Form (CAF) of a witness in a Court of Inquiry be obtained from the mobile service provider without his permission in civil proceedings which is not a criminal proceeding?

(b) Is it the infringement of privacy of a witness in case his Call Detail Records (CDR) and the Customer Application Form (CAF) are obtained without the consent of a witness in a Court of Inquiry?

(c) is a public servant who obtains the Call Detail Records (CDR) and the Customer Application Form (CAF) in an illegal manner in a Court of Inquiry relating to a civil matter and not a criminal proceeding liable for punishment under the military law/Criminal Law?”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 03.11.2023 stating as under:

“Your RTI application has physically transferred to The RTI Cell, Army Hars., ADG AE G-6, D-1 Wing, Sena Bhawan, IHQ of MoD Army, New Delhi-110011 Tele 011-23019585, Fax 011-23335675, Email. rticell-army at nic.in on 02/11/2023 vide MoD ID no. 19 1/2020/DMA Coord.”

3. The CPIO, IHQ of MoD furnished a reply to the Appellant on 24.11.2023 stating as under:

“1. It is intimated that no specific information as defined in section 2 (f) of RTI Act 2005 has been sought by you. Your request for information is vague, non specific, interrogatory and seeking clarifications, which is out of purview of RTI Act 2005 and PIO is not obliged to provide the same. It is clarified that only such information can be supplied under the Act which already exists and is held by the public authority and sought for in clear terms. You are informed to approach the concerned administrative office directly with specific details or supporting documents for related clarifications.

This disposes your RTI application mentioned at Para 1 above.”

4. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.12.2023.

The FAA vide its order dated 20.12.2023, held as under.

“1. after having perused all the records and after hearing views of the nodal officer, I find that appropriate reply has already been provisioned to the appellant by the CPIO vide RTI Cell letter No A/810027/RTI/OL-83370 dated 24 Nov 2023. I, therefore, uphold the decision of the CPIO. However, I direct CPIO to transfer the initial application and first appeal to MCTE, Mhow.

2. The appeal is therefore disposed of accordingly.”

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

2. CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/110240

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

Information sought:

6. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 12.12.2023 seeking the following information:

“1. I, Colonel Amanpreet Singh Gill, resident of H No 229, Sec 16-A, Chandigarh - 160015, wish to seek information under RTI Act, 2005 . The information needed pertains to:-

(a) Does Indian Army Authorities allow seizing/confiscating digital artifacts belonging to the Armed Forces personal with and without his/her consent?

(b) If yes, please inform under which provisions of law/policy?

(c) Does Indian Army conduct the forensics of digital artifacts confiscated/ seized from its personnel?

(d) If yes, please inform under which provisions of law/policy?

(e) Does the