RTI limited to existing records; no obligation to create information, opinions or justifications. Repetitive filings by habitual applicants misuse Act, warrant admonition and record-keeping by authorities. (28 words)

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 2(f), 4(1)(b) - Scope of 'information' - Public authorities not obligated to create information, provide explanations, opinions, justifications, or interpretations not existing in records; limited to furnishing material already available - Queries seeking 'why', 'how' refusals fall outside RTI purview (Paras 14, 15).

(B) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Misuse and abuse - Frequent, repetitive, overlapping applications by habitual filers constitute vexatious litigation, administrative harassment; authorities to maintain records of pattern for future reference - Admonition to exercise RTI judiciously, not as tool for pressure or vendetta (Paras 17, 21).

(C) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Supreme Court exposition - No duty to collect, collate non-available data, draw inferences, or provide advice; reference to judgments clarifying limits to prevent burden on administration and ensure efficiency (Para 15).

Facts of the case:
Multiple clubbed second appeals against public authority concerning repetitive queries on appointments of grievance officers/appellate authorities, their qualifications, criminal liability under penal provisions, implementation of court judgments on gratuity entitlements for honorary workers, legal opinions, policy compliance, and related matters - CPIO/FAA responses cited Section 2(f) limitations, jurisdictional issues, non-existence of records; Commission noted appellant's history of over 50 applications, 24 appeals since 2023.

Findings of Court:
Public authority discharged duties by providing available information; no further intervention warranted - Appellant's pattern of filings deemed frivolous, vexatious; public authority advised to log repetitive applications.

Issues: Whether queries demanding justifications, opinions on legal liability, reasons for actions, interpretations of judgments qualify as 'information' under RTI; whether excessive filings misuse the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: 'Information' confined to existing records per Section 2(f); no creation of answers to 'why/how' queries or opinions - Repetitive RTI filings by single applicant burden administration, warrant restraint and record-keeping to curb abuse.

Result: All second appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. rti queries on appointments, public servant liability, and ipc violations not disclosable (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. anganwadi workers honorary; gratuity per state-specific sc directives (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
3. rti limited to existing records; no opinions or inferences required (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
4. rti misuse by repetitive filings warrants admonition and dismissal (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)

ORDER

Second Appeal No. CIC/MOWCD/A/2024/635389

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1. Whether Ms Jyotika Has Been Appointed Pgo In My Public Grievance After Receiving Of My Two RTI Application, Bearing Registration Number Mowcd/R/E/23/01204 And Mowcd/R/E/23/01205 And Whether She Has Been Assigned Responciblity Of Faa In This Section Propr To Filing Of My Rti Application. Why Ms Arkaja Das Has Refused To Perform The Role Of Pgo In This Public Grievance And Who Have Appointed Ms Jyotika As Pgo In This Public Grievance.

2. Why Ms Aditi Das Rout Has Refused To Perform The Role Of First Appealate Authority In My Appeal And When Ms Pallavi Aggrawal Has Been Appointed First Appealate Authority In This Appeal And Who Has Appointed Her First Appealate Authority.

3. Whether Pgo ,Fisrt Appealate Authority Under Public Grievance Redressal Act Is Public Servant Or Not And If Public Servants Acts Contrary To Law And Act ,They Are Liable To Be Punished Under Section 166 ,166a And 167 Of Indian Penal Code Or Not.

4. Whether Cpio Ms Janaki Vishwanathan Has Commited Offence Of Violation Of Rti Act 2005 Or Not In My Abovementioned Two RTI Applications By Not Providing Me The Information That Information Has Been Received By Pgo Shri Sukh Meena And Nodal Officer Ms Pallavi Aggrawal Or Not And CPIO Is A Public Servant Or Not

5. Whether CPIO Can Be Punished Under Sec 166 ,166a And 167 Of Indian Penal Code For Disobeying As A Public Servant Mandate Of Right To Information Act 2005 And For The Offence Of Deriliction Of Their Official Duty As A Public Servant CPIO ) Under RTI Act 2005 Or Not.

1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.06.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

Point No. 1 & 2. According to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, information in the form of "why," "how," "what," etc., shall not be created to respond to an applicant's query unless the answer already exists in material form.

Point No. 3 to 5. Points raised in the RTI application do not come under the purview of this CPIO. Applicant is requested to kindly make an application to the PIO Concerned directly.

1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.05.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 01.07.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

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

1.4. A written submission dated 12.01.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:

“Reference is invited to the above-mentioned CIC Notice in which CPIO of this Ministry is directed to appear before Hon'ble Information Commissioner on 13/01/2026 at 11.00 AM in the matter of Shri Rajnish Ratnakar in respect of online RTI application bearing registration number MOWCD/R/E/24/00473 dated 21/04/2024 and online 1 Appeal bearing registration number MOWCD/A/E/24/00073, dated 25/05/2024.

2. In this regard, submission of CPIO (CD Bureau) of this Ministry is as under: - As per records available in the CD Bureau of this Ministry, the online RTI application bearing registration number MOWCD/R/E/24/00473 dated 21/04/2024 of Shri Rajnish Ratnakar was received in the online account of former CPIO (CD Bureau) on the same date and a reply was provided to the applicant on 10/06/2024 (Annexure-1)

The 1 Appeal bearing registration number MOWCD/A/E/24/00073, dated

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2045

RTI limited to existing records; no obligation to create information, opinions or justifications. Repetitive filings by habitual applicants misuse Act, warrant admonition and record-keeping by authorities. (28 words)

Cases Referred (1)