SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 4431

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Information Commissioner
S Rudraprakash – Appellant
Versus
The CPIO Life Insurance Corporation of India – Respondent
CIC/LICOI/A/2024/618743 | CIC/LICOI/C/2024/631038



Advocates:
For the Appellant/Complainant: S Rudraprakash
For the Respondents: Ms. Gayathri, Shri Rajeev Kapoor, Shri Sriram Vaidya

Public authorities are not compelled to create or provide information not already held in records. Disclosure may be restricted under fiduciary relationships.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(e) - Information disclosure regarding employment provident fund - Second Appeal and Complaint concerning the appellant’s request for rules related to LIC Provident Fund - The CPIO asserted the inaccessibility of documents and fiduciary relationship as reasons for denial under the RTI Act - Relevant provisions stated by the CPIO as justification for not releasing information. (Paras 1-17)

(B) Judicial Precedents - Previous rulings emphasized the non-obligation of public authorities to create information not readily available; statements uphold the exemption criterion under RTI when information held in fiduciary relationship - Notably, references to rulings from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court add weight to the CPIO’s position on information availability. (Paras 10-12)

Facts of the case:
Appellant sought details on Provident Fund regulations failing which he identified as the legal heir of a deceased LIC employee - The applicant’s information requests were deemed outside the CPIO’s duties based on available records.

Findings of Court:
The Commission upheld the CPIO’s replies as consistent with provisions of the RTI Act, affirming all required disclosures had been made or that no additional records existed.

Issues: The principal issues were the obligation of the CPIO to provide information not available in records and existence of a fiduciary relationship governing disclosure practices.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that public authorities are not compelled to reproduce non-existent records or information under RTI, reinforcing the rights outlined in Sections 4(1) and 2(j) of the RTI Act concerning record maintenance.

Result: Second appeals disposable for lack of validity.

Table of Content
1. the appellant sought regulations and rules pertaining to lic provident fund. (Para 1 , 3)
2. the cpio provided rules regarding the fiduciary nature of the information requested. (Para 2 , 4 , 5)
3. the applicant contended the unavailability from public domain, citing failures by the cpio. (Para 6 , 7)
4. observations noted that public authorities are not obliged to disclose records not in possession. (Para 8 , 10 , 12)
5. the commission dismissed the appeal affirming transparency and adherence to provisions of the rti act. (Para 9 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)

Information sought:

1. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 18.03.2024 (online) seeking the following information:

1) Kindly provide a copy of the standing rules, regulations, statutes applicable for LIC of India for provident fund of its employees.

2) copy of the guidelines, rules, statutes applicable to LIC of India wrt to unpaid provident fund gratuity, bonus etc of LIC employees.

3) If no such rules guidelines exist, kindly let me know if you are bound by regulations of the Provident Fund.

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant/Complainant on 16.04.2024 stating as under:

1) The applicant is informed that Section 8 of LIC Act, 1956 requires constitution of a fund for managing the Provident fund of the members of the Fund. Accordingly, a fund of employees of LIC of India, under the name and style LIC of India Provident Fund No. 1 was set up, which is a recognized Provident Fund approved by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai under IVth Schedule of Income Tax Act, 1961. The management, investment, administration and control of the Fund shall in all respects be vested in the Trustees of the Fund under Rule 8 of LIC of India Provident Fund No. 1 Rules.

As the information sought is held by the Trust in fiduciary capacity, (fiduciary relationship between Trust and its members), the same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005.

The applicant is also informed that the PF rules are readily available on the intranet website of this Public Authority, Jeevan Sanchar, under Finance and Accounts Department, PF and Pension Section, for the benefit of its employees.

2) The applicant is informed that he may refer Rule 58 for bonus, Rule 76 for Provident Fund and Rule 77 for Gratuity which are available under Chapter VII (Miscellaneous) of LIC of India (Staff) Rules, 1960 available in public domain, i.e., www.licindia.in.

Path for the same is:

www.licindia.in -RTI Center - Powers and duties of its officers and employees - Staff Rules 1960 Link for the same is:

https://licindia.in/documents/d/guest/lic-of-india-staff-rules-1960_updated- 31-01-2022-1

3) The provident Fund of the employees of LIC of India is governed by the rules of LIC of India Provident Fund No.1, which is a recognized Provident Fund approved by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai under IVth Schedule of Income Tax Act 1961.

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 16.04.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 02.05.2024, held as under:

"This Commission observes that the CPIO is obliged to provide the information to the extent it is available in their records. If the information is not available, there is no bounden duty of the CPIO to create any fresh compilation for non-existent records. This legal principle is supported by the decision dated 07-01- 2016 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in LPA 24/2015 & CM No. 965/2015 titled as The Registrar of Supreme Court of India v. Commodore Lokesh K Batra & Ors., wherein, it was held as under:-

"15. On a combined reading of Section 4 (1)(a) and Section 2 (j), it appears to us that the requirement is only to maintain the records in a manner which facilitates the right to information under the Act. As already noticed above, "right to information" under (j) means only the right to information which is held by any public authority. We do not find any other provision under the Act under which

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top