Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Personal Information Exemption - Certain information, such as policyholder details, cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, as it pertains to third-party personal data. ["V S S Krishna vs Life Insurance Corporation of India - Central Information Commission"]
Scope of 'Information' - Many requests are denied when the sought data does not fall within the definition of 'information' under Section 2(f). Requests for internal policies, opinions, or confirmation of facts are often considered non-disclosable or outside the RTI's scope. ["Sham Sunder vs Punjab National Bank - Central Information Commission"], ["P K Sharma vs Rural / Gramin Banks - Central Information Commission"], ["DINESH GROVER vs Central Bank - Central Information Commission"]
Rejection of Queries as Non-Information - Several cases involve CPIOs rejecting questions or queries on the grounds they are not 'information' as per Section 2(f), especially when they seek opinions, confirmations, or procedural details not constituting record-based data. ["Aditi vs CPIO: Indian Institute of Management: Ahmedabad - Central Information Commission"], ["P K Sharma vs Rural / Gramin Banks - Central Information Commission"], ["DINESH GROVER vs Central Bank - Central Information Commission"]
Cases of Records Not Available - When records are destroyed or unavailable (e.g., burnt/destroyed), authorities are instructed to confirm non-availability via affidavits, and reconstruction is encouraged where possible. ["P K Sharma vs Rural / Gramin Banks - Central Information Commission"], ["All India Chess Federation vs Central Information Commissi - Madras"], ["INDCIC00000075175"]
Clarification on Action Taken - Requests for action reports or status updates are often considered within the scope of 'information' but are sometimes denied if deemed to be outside the definition or if they involve internal decision-making. ["Divyank Dixit vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Central Information Commission"], ["Sham Sunder vs Punjab National Bank - Central Information Commission"]
Analysis and Conclusion:Most queries asking for personal, internal policy, or opinion-based information are typically denied under RTI Act provisions, especially Section 8(1)(j) and Section 2(f). The RTI framework emphasizes record-based information, and requests for confirmation, opinions, or procedural details not constituting records are frequently deemed outside its scope. When records are missing or destroyed, authorities are directed to formally declare non-availability. Therefore, a Yes answer to whether a verifiable fact can be asked under RTI is generally yes, but the nature of the fact must align with the definition of 'information' and not be exempted or non-record-based.
The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, empowers Indian citizens to seek transparency from public authorities. But can you frame questions about verifiable facts within records as simple yes/no queries? This is a common dilemma for RTI applicants. In this post, we dive into the scope of verifiable facts, the permissibility of yes/no questions, judicial interpretations, and practical limitations—drawing from legal provisions and case insights.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information based on legal precedents and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.
Verifiable facts refer to objective, concrete information that can be confirmed through records, such as dates, amounts, documents, or transactions. The RTI Act focuses on disclosing such factual data held by public authorities, as defined under Section 2(f), which includes any material in any form like records, emails, or samples.
Courts have consistently held that RTI applies to factual, verifiable data rather than opinions or hypotheticals. For instance, details like income tax returns or payment reconciliations qualify as verifiable facts. K. Chiranjeevi VS Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, New Delhi - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 3025
However, not all queries fit. In one case, the CPIO rejected a request stating, You have asked questions which do not come within the definition of information as defined under Section 2(f) of RTI Act. Yogendra Kumar vs Punjab National Bank - 2023 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 7029 This highlights that queries resembling grievances or disputes may be denied, as complaints, appeals, disputing the basis of the information, queries raised thereon and request for redressal of grievance cannot be made under the RTI Act. R. Vishnu Ram Saravanavel VS State Information Commissioner, State Information Commission, Teynampet, Chennai - 2020 Supreme(Mad) 2008
Yes/no questions are binary queries seeking confirmation of existence or occurrence, like Did the officer approve the transaction on date Y?
The RTI Act does not explicitly prohibit such framing. It emphasizes providing information rather than answering interrogatives, but yes/no questions are allowed if they target verifiable facts. They are useful for clarity on specific points. K. Chiranjeevi VS Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, New Delhi - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 3025
Judicial guidance supports this when questions elicit factual responses. However, complex matters may require detailed replies beyond yes/no. For example, There would be hundreds of questions which can never be replied in simple 'yes' or 'no'. This principle from cross-examination contexts underscores limitations in nuanced scenarios, applicable analogously to RTI. Tushar Haribhai Gondalia VS State of Gujarat - 2014 Supreme(Guj) 842
Even verifiable facts aren't always disclosable. Section 8 exemptions protect:- Personal information unrelated to public activity (Clause j).- Security or law enforcement data (Clauses g, d).- Trade secrets or commercial confidence (Clause d). K. Chiranjeevi VS Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, New Delhi - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 3025
In judicial records, scope is narrower. The Supreme Court has ruled that information on judicial functions, like inspections or copies, falls under Supreme Court Rules (SCR) rather than RTI, as the scope of records that can be provided under Section 2(i) of RTI Act is much wider than the records that can be provided under the SCR. Registrar, Supreme Court of India VS R. S. Misra - 2017 Supreme(Del) 4524
Public authorities must issue reasoned orders. One court set aside a rejection for lacking reasoning, remitting for fresh consideration: The requirement for a reasoned order dealing with each contention raised by the parties under the RTI Act. R. Vishnu Ram Saravanavel VS State Information Commissioner, State Information Commission, Teynampet, Chennai - 2020 Supreme(Mad) 2008
Destroyed records pose challenges. In a Juvenile Justice Board case, the court directed file reconstruction under Section 99(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, stating, The victim shall not be denied access to their case record. Delhi State Legal Services Authority Through Member Secrtary VS Cheif Public Information Officer (Cipo) - 2023 Supreme(Del) 2019
These cases illustrate that while verifiable facts are accessible, framing and exemptions matter.
The RTI Act promotes accountability by allowing access to verifiable facts, including through yes/no questions when properly framed. However, success depends on specificity, avoiding exemptions, and respecting judicial precedents. For instance, while simple confirmations are fine, complex issues may need broader requests. Tushar Haribhai Gondalia VS State of Gujarat - 2014 Supreme(Guj) 842
Stay informed, file thoughtfully, and leverage RTI for transparency—but remember, it's a tool for facts, not debates. For personalized guidance, reach out to legal experts.
References:- K. Chiranjeevi VS Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, New Delhi - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 3025 – Core case on RTI scope and exemptions.- Yogendra Kumar vs Punjab National Bank - 2023 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 7029 – Definition of information under Section 2(f).- Delhi State Legal Services Authority Through Member Secrtary VS Cheif Public Information Officer (Cipo) - 2023 Supreme(Del) 2019 – File reconstruction in RTI.- R. Vishnu Ram Saravanavel VS State Information Commissioner, State Information Commission, Teynampet, Chennai - 2020 Supreme(Mad) 2008 – Reasoned orders in RTI appeals.- Registrar, Supreme Court of India VS R. S. Misra - 2017 Supreme(Del) 4524 – RTI vs. court rules.- Tushar Haribhai Gondalia VS State of Gujarat - 2014 Supreme(Guj) 842 – Limitations of yes/no responses.
#RTIAct, #RightToInformation, #VerifiableFacts
which cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. ... the RTI Act, 2005 as it is personal information of third party (policy holders). ... 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as it is personal information of third party (policy holders). ... This direction should be complied with within one week of the date of receipt of this order. 15. ... In my previous RTI Ref No: LICSZ/R/T/22/00006 Receipt Date: 28.02.2022 Refer the Query – 06 In this que....
The information as asked by you is not specific under RTI Act, it is the internal policy of bank and bank has the right to decide which information is to be provided to the RTI holder or ... Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 27.09.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Udaipur. The CPIO vide letter dated 25.11.20....
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought clarification and opinion, which do not fall within the definition of “information” as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. ... Hence I am submitting this RTI as a gentle reminder to please provide me the sought information under the RTI Act. For your convenience, information sought in the said #HL_STA....
Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 12.09.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO),Punjab National Bank, Udaipur. The CPIO vide letter dated 25.11.2021 replied to the appellant. ... In view of the above, the respondent is directed to re-visit the RTI application and provide appropriate information/comprehensive reply, recorded reasons, if any, to the appellant within two wee....
Manpreet Kaur on point No. 1 of RTI application in one liner stating that information sought is outside Section 2(f) of the RTI Act ignoring the fact that the Appellant has specifically asked for action taken report on his emails which is well covered in the definition of ‘information’ as per the RTI ... The information under all three questions have been denied that do not fall under ‘Information’ as per Section-2(f) of RTI Act,200....
has been communicated to you more than once and you continue to raise questions under RTI which deserve no answer. ... The matter was examined in the Commission and it was observed that the fact of non-availability of records (in respect of Point Nos.1, 2 & 4 of appellant's RTI application of March, 2013) was not mentioned in the original reply dated 03.04.2013 of the CPIO. ... In the circumstances, the Commission directs you to file a sworn affidavit before it affirming the fact that ....
The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.02.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:- (i) & (ii) “You have asked questions which do not come within the definition of information as defined under Section 2(f) of RTI Act. ... Perusal of the RTI application revealed that the appellant had raised some queries from the CPIO which did not fall within the definition of “information” as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. ... (....
The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.02.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:- (i) & (ii) “You have asked questions which do not come within the definition of information as defined under Section 2(f) of RTI Act. ... Perusal of the RTI application revealed that the appellant had raised some queries from the CPIO which did not fall within the definition of “information” as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. ... The re....
Information as asked on point no 1 & 2 in your application under Right to Information Act 2005, is in the form to "Confirm" certain fact which does not come in the definition of "Information" as given in section 2 (F) of Right to Information Act 2005. ... The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that appropriate reply has been given by the CPIO, as per provisions of the R....
By the said order, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJ Board) had been asked to reconstruct the file and furnish the documents sought by the RTI Applicant/Respondent No.2-D. Kumar in his RTI application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). ... Kumar, under Right to information Act has been forwarded to us to furnish the requisite information. It is informed that some of the records/cases had been burnt/de....
5. The First Respondent, has by Order No. 12732/B/2012 dated 19.04.2012, rejected that Second Appeal stating as follows:- Based on the information received, complaints, appeals, disputing the basis of the information, queries raised thereon and request for redressal of grievance cannot be made under the RTI Act. “As per the Right to Information Act, “Information” can only be asked.
She further submitted that whereas the RTI Act is a substantive Law and a statutory enactment, the SCR are subordinate legislation, being Rules and Regulations framed under Article 145(1) of the Constitution, which lay down the procedure to provide certified copies of documents, etc. The scope of records that can be provided under Section 2(i) of RTI Act is much wider than the records that can be provided under the SCR. In support of her submission, she relied upon Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs. Jagdish, (2001) 2 SCC 247 wherein it has been held “Rules framed by the High Court i....
It was the contention of respondents Nos. 1-3 that since the proposed construction did not cover more than 1/3rd area and since there is no restriction on the use and development of the land for personal purposes, the demand of the Corporation that 1/3rd area be carved out and kept separate, is unacceptable. Several documents have been placed on record by the parties, regarding the consideration of the said plans by the respondent Corporation. During the consideration of the plans submitted by respondents Nos. 1-3 to the Corporation, there was an inter-se discussion within the Corporation as....
However, such system would not mean that even when the witness is asked questions in the cross-examination, he cannot tender his explanation. A clever lawyer may frame such question and if answered in 'yes' or 'no', both such replies would be equally incriminating. There would be hundreds of questions which can never be replied in simple 'yes' or 'no'. For instance, if a question is put to a witness, namely, “have you stopped beating your wife?”
This particular stands of the APSC is really unfortunate, more particularly when never before during the course of the selection, it had questioned the eligibility of the Petitioner. INFORMATION FURNISHED UNDER RTI ACT VIS-A-VIS THE RECORDS
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
