Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, a public authority is only required to provide existing information and is not obligated to create information, offer interpretations, provide advice, or draw inferences to answer hypothetical or clarificatory questions.

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.08.2024 (online) seeking the following information: “RTI ACT 2005 HAS BEEN ENACTED IN THIS NATION TO BRING PRACTICAL REGIME AND CONTROL CORRUPTION PREVALENT IN PUBLIC AUTHORITY BY LAW BREAKER PUBLIC SERVANTS AND TO CREATE INFORMED CITIZENRY.

That DARPG, GOVT OF INDIA IS NODAL DEPARTEMNT/MINISTRY UNDER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WHICH HAS BEEN ALLOCATED BUSINESS TO REDRESS PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND TO BRING ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS IN THIS NATION UNDER ALLOCATION OF BUSINESS RULES OF 1961.

THAT DARPG RESTRICTS FILING OF PF RELATED WITH RTI MATTERS WHICH IS CAUSING PROBLEMS TO CITIZENS OF THIS NATION AND GIVING OPTIONS TO CORRUPT PUBLIC SERVANTS TO DO GROSS MISCONDUCT AND ABUSE OF POWER.

THAT RTI ACT 2005 IS A COMPLETE ACT WHICH PROVIDES RIGHT TO INFORMATION TO THE CITIZENS OF THIS NATION.

THAT FOR THIS PURPOSE EVERY PUBLIC AUTHORITY HAS NOMINATED CPIO AND FAA IN THEIR PUBLIC AUTHORITY.

THAT SECTION 7 OF RTI ACT DEALS WITH PROVIDING OF INFORMATION AND IF INFORMATION IS NOT PROVIDED TO THE APPLICANT THAN HE CAN FILE FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 OF RTI ACT 2005 BEFORE THE FAA OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY.

THAT THIS ACT HAS INBUILT PROVISIONS OF FILING FIRST AND SECOND APPEAL ALSO. SECOND APPEALS AND COMPLAINTS ARE FILED BEFORE CIC/SIC UNDER SECTION 18/19 OF RTI ACT 2005.

THAT SECTION 8,11 AND 24 OF RTI ACT PROHIBITS INFORMATION TO APPLICANT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES ALSO.

THAT CPIO/FAA/CIC/SIC HAS ROLE ONLY UNDER THESE FEW SECTIONS ONLY WHILE ENTERTAINING FIRST APPEAL AND SECOND APPEAL.

THAT I HAVE MADE COMPLAINT THROUGH PG PORTALS IN FEW STATES THAT THESE STATES ARE DOING CONTEMPT OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGEMENT RELATED WITH RTI ACT IN THE PIL MATTER OF NAMIT SHARMA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANJALI BHARDWAJ VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ETC WHERE BY STATE GOVERNMENT IS DIRECTLY VIOLATING THIS RTI ACT 2005 IN THIS NATION.

BUT VERY UNFORTUNATELY FEW STATES RULED BY BJP LED GOVERNMENT HAS DENIED AND ILLEGALLY DISPOSED BY PG BY TREATING IT AS RTI RELATED MATTER/JUDICIAL MATTER / PG NOT MAINTAINABLE ON THIS WEB PORTAL NOW KINDLY PROVIDE ME INFORMATION UNDER RTI ACT 2005:

1 WHETHER NOT APPOINTING SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF INFORMATION COMMISSIONERS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES ARE RTI RELATED MATTER/JUDICIAL MATTER OR THIS IS VIOLATION OF RTI ACT 2005 DIRECTLY BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT

2 WHETHER COMPLAINT REGARDING CONTEMPT OF SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT IN NAMIT SHARMA CASE WHILE APPOINTING FAA BY THE CIC/DARPG/A/2025/658282

3 THAT IF THERE IS DIFFERNCE BETWEEN RTI REALETD MATTERS FOR WHICH RTI ACT 2005 HAS INBUILT PROVISIONS OF FILING FIRST AND SECOND APPEAL AND VIOLATION OF RTI ACT 2005 BY THE GOVERNMENT DIRECTLY, THEN WHAT STEPS AND MEASURES HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY TO RESOLVE THIS VERY SERIOUS ISSUE YET”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 24.09.2024 stating as under: “Reply :- No specific information is available in terms Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act 2005 to provide in response to your RTI application. It may be noted that only such information can be supplied which already exists and is held by the Public Authority or held under the control of Public Authority. The PIO is not supposed to create information or to interpret information or to solve the problems raised by the applicants or to furnish reply to the hypothetical questions. It may also be noted that the Act does not require providing non existing advice or opinion to an applicant.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.10.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 09.12.2024, held as under: “Reply :- I find that the