Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3980

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Raj Kumar Goyal, Information Commissioner
Akshay Kumar Malhotra – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Police – Respondent
Complaint No. CIC/DEPOL/C/2025/621749

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Rajbir Singh, Rajeev Kumar, Dinesh Dahiya

The RTI Act does not mandate public authorities to provide justifications or reasons for administrative decisions or legal determinations made during investigations; the scope of Section 18 is strictly limited to determining whether there was willful concealment of existing information.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 18 - Scope of proceedings under Section 18 is limited to deciding whether there was willful concealment of information by the PIO - Adjudication of the correctness of police reports or investigation decisions (such as non-cognizable vs cognizable offences) is outside the scope of the RTI Act.

Facts of the case:
Complainant filed an RTI application seeking detailed status reports and investigation documents regarding an online cyber crime complaint. The respondent police authority reported that the complaint resulted in no FIR as no cognizable offence or financial loss was found. Complainant challenged this, alleging illegality in the police procedure (digital arrest) and failure to provide detailed investigation records.

Findings of Court:
Information provided by the respondent was found to be sufficient and in accordance with existing official records. The Commission held that the PIO is not obligated to provide justifications or reasons for administrative decisions taken regarding the status of a complaint, as such matters reside with adjudicating authorities outside the RTI framework.

Issues: Whether the PIO failed to disclose information in compliance with the RTI Act and whether the Commission can adjudicate the correctness of the police's decision to close a complaint.

Ratio Decidendi: Information under the RTI Act must be available and existing on records; the authority cannot be expected to explain the 'why' or 'justification' behind a decision (relying on Dr. Celsa Pinto v. The Goa State Information Commission), and proceedings under Section 18 of the RTI Act cannot be used to force access to information or adjudicate the validity of police actions.

Result: Complaint dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of procedural history and initial complaints regarding police failure to provide investigation updates. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. intermediate procedural directions and updated police reporting before the commission. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. limitations of rti act regarding investigation justifications and scope of section 18 complaints. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 14.10.2024	FA : 27.11.2024	SA : 15.05.2025
CPIO : 12.11.2024	FAO : 17.12.2024	Hearing : 15.01.2026 24.03.2026

Date of Decision: 30.03.2026

CORAM

Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL

O R D E R

1. The Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 14.10.2024 before the DCP(IFSO)/CPIO, Cyber Police Station North West District, seeking the information about action taken and status report on his Online Complaint No. 20806240045822 dated 13.06.2024, lodged Online on the website of Cyber Crime web portal i.e. https://cybercrime.gov.in/ related to a fraud call received by him. His list of queries are as under:

“1. Please give me the complete address of this Cyber Police Station, North West Delhi.

2. Please inform me the names of the persons at helm and persons in charge for handling cyber complaints, along with their designations and contact details viz official Phone numbers/Mobile Numbers in this Cyber Police Station, North West Delhi.

3. Please inform me the action taken on mobile number 9xxxx1579, from which the call came on my mobile number 9******17 on 13.06.2024 at around 0840 am.

4. Please inform me the action taken on skype details (which are available with you as I shared the screenshot of the skype video call details) from where I received the skype video call at around 09.35 am on 13.06.2024 at around 09.35 am

5. Please inform me the action taken on the said Complaint.

6. Please inform me the FIR, if any, lodged on basis of my complaint.

7. Please inform me the reasons for not lodging FIR in my above mentioned complaint, if the FIR is not registered.

8. Please inform me the status of my said Complaint/FIR.

9. Please inform me various Sections and name of the Act/Law ( Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) etc etc) under which my Complaint/FIR is booked.

10. Please inform me the name(s) of all those Investigating officer(s) who investigated/investigating my above mentioned FIR. Please inform me the PIS Numbers as well as Ranks of all such I/o and the period (from date: To Date:) during which the said investigation was under their control.

11. Please inform me the name(s) of the people who are been questioned during investigation and the date(s) on which each of such person was investigated.

12. Please inform me the observations/findings of the I/o while investigating the said Complaint/FIR, and also provide me with the certified copies of all such observations/findings of the I/o during investigation. I am to be provided with the certified copies of all such people were investigated and the observations/findings of the I/o for each of all such people.

13. Please inform me and provide me with the certified copies of all such statements which are submitted by those people who were investigated by I/o during the course of investigation for the said Complaint/FIR.

14. Please inform me the reason(s) in records, in case, the people which are been named and identified by I/o related to said Complaint/FIR but are not been investigated, and also inform me the reasons for which such people are not investigated.

15. Please inform me the reason for change of I/o’s, if there are more than 1 I/o in the present FIR.

16. Please inform me the reasons in records for I/o not even updating me about the status of my Complaint/FIR, even though I/o is under obligation under BNS to provide me with the status of my Complaint/FIR.

17. Please inform me names of the concerned public servants i.e. HC/ASI/SI from Cyber Crime Police, NWD, Delhi and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3980

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONRaj Kumar Goyal, Information CommissionerAkshay Kumar Malhotra – AppellantVersusDelhi Police – RespondentComplaint No. CIC/DEPOL/C/2025/621749

The RTI Act does not mandate public authorities to provide justifications or reasons for administrative decisions or legal determinations made during investigations; the scope of Section 18 is strictly limited to determining whether there was willful concealment of existing information.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Raj Kumar Goyal, Information Commissioner
Akshay Kumar Malhotra – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Police – Respondent
Complaint No. CIC/DEPOL/C/2025/621749