RTI Act limits disclosure to existing records; public authorities cannot create information, provide opinions, or answer 'why' queries. Repeated vexatious applications misuse the Act and warrant admonition.

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, interpretations, or justifications not existing in records; limited to furnishing existing material without drawing inferences or conclusions - CPIOs not required to answer 'why', 'how' queries or provide advice. (Paras 14, 15)

(B) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Misuse and abuse - Repeated, overlapping, vexatious applications constituting harassment of public authorities warrant admonition; right to information must be exercised judiciously, not as tool for pressure or obstruction of duties - Public authorities to maintain records of repetitive filings. (Paras 17, 21)

Facts of the case:
Multiple second appeals clubbed concerning repetitive RTI applications seeking details on appointments of grievance officers/appellate authorities, their qualifications, criminal liability under penal provisions, implementation of court judgments on gratuity/social security benefits for honorary workers under centrally sponsored schemes, legal opinions, policy compliance, and related procedural aspects. CPIOs/FAA responded by denying creation of information, citing lack of jurisdiction or non-existence in records; Commission heard representatives who affirmed provision of available information.

Findings of Court:
Responses by public authority appropriate under RTI Act; appellant's queries seek non-existent information, interpretations, and opinions beyond CPIO mandate; pattern of excessive filings noted, with over 50 RTIs, 24 appeals, and 99 prior second appeals disposed.

Issues: Whether RTI queries demanding explanations for actions, legal interpretations of judgments, officer liabilities, and policy implementation steps constitute disclosable 'information'; whether repeated filings amount to misuse of RTI process.

Ratio Decidendi: 'Information' under Section 2(f) confined to existing records; public authorities need not collect, collate, interpret, or justify; indiscriminate demands counterproductive, affecting administrative efficiency - Act not for harassment but transparency.

Result: Second appeals dismissed; appellant admonished for frivolous, vexatious use.

Table of Content
1. rti queries on appointments and liabilities rejected under section 2(f) (Para 1)
2. rti on pgo compliance with ncte norms not creatable (Para 2)
3. no law degree info for faa available under cpio jurisdiction (Para 3)
4. cvo complaint info transferred under section 6(3) (Para 4)
5. labour ministry judgments outside mowcd purview (Para 5)
6. maniben judgment applies to states, not central directive (Para 6)
7. court judgments interpretation not cpio's purview (Para 7)
8. judgment implementation duties not record-based info (Para 8)
9. legal opinions fiduciary, not disclosable (Para 9)
10. anganwadi honorary status limits gratuity liability (Para 10)
11. anganwadi workers honorary, gratuity state-directed (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
12. rti limited to existing records, no inferences (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
13. rti misuse admonished, appeals dismissed (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, sub

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2046

RTI Act limits disclosure to existing records; public authorities cannot create information, provide opinions, or answer 'why' queries. Repeated vexatious applications misuse the Act and warrant admonition.

Cases Referred (1)