Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 5178

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Sudha Rani Relangi, Information Commissioner
Anil Swarup – Appellant
Versus
CPIO – Respondent
CIC/CBSED/A/2025/610181

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anil Swarup
For the Respondents: Pankaj Kshettery

The RTI Act does not mandate public authorities to provide interpretations, clarifications, or justifications of their actions; it is restricted to existing documents. Furthermore, authorities may deny information if requested repeatedly for the purpose of harassing public officials or to facilitate parallel discovery in ongoing private civil litigation.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 2(f), 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) - Transparency in governance - Appellant sought clarification and justification regarding school affiliation and internal contracts - Held, the RTI Act is for accessing available records and not a forum for seeking explanations, interpretations, or strategic discovery for private litigations - Information sought characterized as repetitive and filed to harass public authority - Disclosure already barred as matter sub-judice in multiple civil suits and involving third-party interests. (Paras 7-9, 11)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a co-landowner, filed multiple RTI applications regarding the affiliation of a school. He contended that the affiliation agreement was inconsistent with government recognition letters. The respondent argued that the appellant is a habitual applicant using the RTI Act as a tool for personal vendetta in ongoing land and tenancy disputes, and that the information was either unavailable or exempt under the Act.

Findings of Court:
The Commission observed that the information sought does not constitute 'information' under Section 2(f) and that the respondent had provided adequate explanations in their written statement. Finding that the appellant’s conduct was repetitive and constituted a misuse of the RTI mechanism, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to justifications and documents regarding school affiliation, and whether the respondent is exempt from disclosing information under the RTI Act while the matter is sub-judice.

Ratio Decidendi: An applicant cannot seek explanations or interpretations of administrative actions under the RTI Act, and the Commission may refuse disclosure where applications are repetitive, lack public interest, and relate to matters sub-judice before courts of law.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts and the scope of the rti application filed by the appellant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. respondent's contentions regarding the habitual and repetitive nature of the rti filings. (Para 7 , 8)
3. conclusion that the matter is sub-judice and the rti act cannot be misused for private litigation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 07.11.2024

CPIO replied on : 12.12.2024

First appeal filed on : 26.12.2024

First Appellate Authority’s order : NA

2nd Appeal dated : 28.02.2025

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.11.2024 seeking the following information:

“कृपया प स०- मायता/2908/2024-25 दनाकं 05.11.2024 का संदभकर। िजसम उलेखत हैक माउं ट ला जी कूल, गांधी कॉलोनी, म जफरनगर को का नसर से लेकर 8वीं तक के सचालन हेतूमायता ीराम एज केनल एडं चैरटेबल सोसाइट 85 साउथ भोपा रोड, म जफरनगर को द गई थी न क ीराम एज केनल एडं चैरटेबल ट को। आपनेजो 9वीं. 10वीं, 11वीं, 12वीं को संचालत करनेहेतूअन बंध दनांक 21.11.2017 को कया था वह ीराम एज केलन एडं चैरटेबल ट सेकया था न क ीराम एज केनल एवंचैरटेबल सोसाइट केसाथ। जनसूचना का अधकार अधनयम 2005 के अंतगत नलखत सूचना देनेका कट करे - 1- जब का नसर सेलेकर 8वीं तक के संचालन हेतूमायता को अन मत ीराम एज केलन एडं चैरटेबल सोसाइटज को राय सरकार नेदान क थी जो क उपरोत प से पट हैतो ऐसी िथत म जो अन बंध दनांक 21.11.2017 को ीराम एज केलन एडं चैरटेबल ट के साथ ह आ था वह राय सरकार के िजस दतावजे के आधार पर कया गया था उसक तलप ेषत करनेका कट कर। 2- यद राय सरकार नेकसी भन संथा को (ी राम एज केशन एडं चेरटेबल सोसाइट) को का नसर सेलेकर 8 वीं तक संचालत करनेके लए माउं ट ला जी कूल, गांधी कॉलोनी, म जफरनगर को अधकृत कया तथा सीबीएसई दल के कसी और भन संथा (ीराम एज केनल एंड चैरटेबल ट) को 9वीं, 10वीं, 11वीं, 12वींको संचालत करनेहेतूअन मत दान क हैतो वह िजस नयम के अंतगत दान क गई हैउससेाथ को अवगत करानेका कट कर। 3- सीबीएसई दल वारा यद कोई अय कूल को मायता द गई हैिजसमराय सरकार न 1 सेलेकर 8वीं तक का संचालन करनेहेतूभन संथा को अन मत द है और सीबीएसई बोड वारा कसी और भन संथा को 9वीं, 10वी, 11वीं 12वीं को संचालत करनेहेतूमायता द गई हो तो ऐसेवयालय क सूच दान करनेका कट कर।“

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 12.12.2024 stating as under:

“Reply of point 1-

The applicant is informed that justification/grounds and interpretation of information do not fall within the definition of Information as per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005.

The CPIO/PIO is not supposed to assume or create information or be required to interpret information and/or provide clarification in respect of the actions of the public authority.

Reply of point 2 and 3-

The desired information is not compiled/available in this office.”

3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.12.2024. The FAA order is not on record.

4. Aggrieved by the non-disposal of First Appeal, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Shri Anil Swarup present through video conference.

Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kshettery, US/CPIO present in person.

5. Written statement of the CPIO is taken on record.

6. Appellant while narrating the factual background of the matter stated that in a letter No. Recognition/2908/2024-25 dated 05.11.2024 related to the recognition received from CBSE, it has been mentioned that the recognition for running classes Nursery to 8th standard for Mount Litera Zee School, Gandhi Colony, Muzaffarnagar was given to Shri Ram Educational and Charitable Society, 85 South Bhopa Road, Muzaffarnagar and not to Shri Ram Educational and Charitable Trust. It depicts that the contract has been signed by the CBSE on 21.11.2017 for running classes 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th was done with Shri Ram Educational and Charitable Trust and not with Shri Ram Educational and Charitable Society. To gather factual basis of this affiliation, the relevant information has been sought through the RTI application in question. However, the Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction to the fact

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 5178

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONSudha Rani Relangi, Information CommissionerAnil Swarup – AppellantVersusCPIO – RespondentCIC/CBSED/A/2025/610181

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Sudha Rani Relangi, Information Commissioner
Anil Swarup – Appellant
Versus
CPIO – Respondent
CIC/CBSED/A/2025/610181