Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 5104

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
P R Ramesh, Commissioner
Mangesh Joshi – Appellant
Versus
Unique Identification Authority of India – Respondent
CIC/UIDAI/C/2024/637760

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Ahmad Mansoori, Dhruv

The Central Information Commission, under Section 18 of the RTI Act, lacks jurisdiction to order disclosure of information and is limited to determining whether the denial of information was mala fide for the purpose of imposing penalties under Section 20.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 18, 19, 20, 7(9), 8(1)(j) and 6(3) - Complaint procedure - Jurisdiction of Information Commission under Section 18 vs. Section 19 - Penalty and disclosure of information - The Commission examined whether there was a deliberate denial of information. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur, it was held that the Information Commission while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 has no jurisdiction to provide access to information but is limited to examining the conduct of the Information Officer for possible penalties under Section 20. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The complainant requested various details regarding Aadhaar enrollment centers, introducer lists, and registration counts in Solapur district. The CPIO provided some documents, transferred certain information to the technical center, and denied other requests citing the lack of compiled data and exemptions under the RTI Act. Not satisfied, the complainant approached the Commission under Section 18, seeking penalties and compensation.

Findings of Court:
The Commission observed that the CPIO had provided a sufficient reply, and that individual requests for compiled data involving disproportionate allocation of resources were denied in accordance with the Act. No malafide intent was found on the part of the CPIO warranting penal action.

Issues: Whether the Commission can order the disclosure of information in a complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act and whether the CPIO’s denial of information was deliberate and malicious.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the Commission’s power is limited to examining the conduct of the CPIO to determine if there was a mala fide denial of information for the purpose of imposing penalties under Section 20. It does not have the jurisdiction to direct the disclosure of information, which is a remedy specifically available under Section 19.

Result: Complaint disposed of; no penal action warranted.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and factual context of the rti request and subsequent complaint. (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. jurisdiction of the commission under section 18 of the rti act. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)

RTI : 09.07.2024	FA : Not on record	Complaint : 23.08.2024
CPIO : 30.07.2024	FAO : Not on record	Hearing : 20.04.2024

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1) 18 साल की उ से आगे के यों के िलए नया आधार काड बनवाने के िलए िजतने आधार पंजीकरण क सोलापुर शहर, महारारा मवतमान ित मकायरत है उन सभी के ो की सूची िमले। इन सभी के दो पर माच 2024 से आज तक िकतने नए आधार आवेदन पंजीकृ त िकए गए ह

2) ऊपर उखत सभी आधार पंजीकरण क ो मिनयु िकए गए सभी Introducers की सूची िमले ।

3) ऊपर उखत इंटोूसर ारा िपछले तीन सालोंम सोलापुर शहर महारारा म िजतने आधार काईस का पंजीकरण आ है उनकी िनिलखत प म जानकारी िमले । इंटोूसर का नाम इंटोूसर के ारा पंजीकरण िकए गए नए आधार काड की संा

4) िजस परवार म माता और िपता दोनों की मृुई होती है और परवार के बड़े भाई का अगर आधार काड है तो इस बुिनयाद पर उस परवार के 18 साल उ के ऊपर के भाई या बहनों का आधार काड बनवाया जा सकता है इस बारे मउपल रकॉड की ित िमले।..etc.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 30.07.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

“Para 1- The details of 13 Aadhar Registration Centers currently functioning in Solapur district, Maharashtra State for making new Aadhar Card for persons above 18 years of age is attached herewith.

The count of new Aadhaar applications registered on the above centers till March 2024 is 981.

Para 2 As per extant UIDAI instructions, introducer based Aadhaar enrolments are not operational.

Para 3- The requested information in Para 3 being closely related to UIDAI Technical Center, Bengaluru. Hence para 3 of the application is hereby transferred to UIDAI Technical Center, Bengaluru under section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Para 4 - It is to inform you that as per para 9 of the guidelines for the Public Authorities under RTI Act circulated vide DoPT OM No. 1/4/2008 IR dated 25th April, 2008, only such information is required to be supplied under the Act which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. It is not required under the Act to create information or to interpret information or to solve the problems raised by the applicants or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions.

Para 5 HOF based enrolments are undertaken at all enrolment centers based on the document submission by the resident. List of valid supporting documents for HOF based enrolment is available on UIDAI official website i.e. www.uidai.gov.in at My Aadhaar - Downloads - List of supporting document for Aadhaar Enrolment and Update. The details of operational Aadhaar centers can be obtained from the link, https://bhuvan-app3.nrsc.gov.in/aadhaar/.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 23.08.2024.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Complainant: Not present

Respondent: Shri Ahmad Mansoori, Dy. Director- Bangalore and Lt. Col. Dhruv, Director, Mumbai- participated in the hearing through video-conference.

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

“..मने तारीख 10/07/2024 को भारतीय िविश पहचान ािधकरण (UIDAI) को एक सचूना का ऑनलाइन आवेदन िकया था। बाद मनोडल अिधकारी ारा वह आवेदन सूचना दने ेके िलए भारतीय िविश पहचान ािधकरण के मंबुई ेीय कायालय को ता. 12/07/2024 को हतांतरत िकया गया। उस पर सचूना अिधकारी UIDAI, मंबुई ेीय कायालय ी अिमत सेठी नेमेरेआवेदन के पॉइंट नंबर 3 क सचूना दने ेके िलए मेरा आवेदन ािधकरण के बगलु टेिनकल सटर को तारीख 30 जलु ाई 2024 को हतातं रत िकया। सचूना अिधकारी ी सेठी ारा मरेा आवेदन यादा सेयादा पाचं िदन केअंदर बगलु तकनीक क के सचूना अिधकारी को भेजना आवयक था मगर 12 जलु ाई 2024 को मरेा सचूना का आवेदन ा होनेके बाद ी सेठी नेउसे बगलु तकनीक क को हतातं रत करनेम 18

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 5104

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONP R Ramesh, CommissionerMangesh Joshi – AppellantVersusUnique Identification Authority of India – RespondentCIC/UIDAI/C/2024/637760

The Central Information Commission, under Section 18 of the RTI Act, lacks jurisdiction to order disclosure of information and is limited to determining whether the denial of information was mala fide for the purpose of imposing penalties under Section 20.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
P R Ramesh, Commissioner
Mangesh Joshi – Appellant
Versus
Unique Identification Authority of India – Respondent
CIC/UIDAI/C/2024/637760