CIC: RTI Act Not for Grievance Redressal or Challenging Information Correctness

New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has dismissed three second appeals filed by an applicant seeking various details about employee postings and transfers within Prasar Bharati ( Doordarshan and Akashwani ), ruling that the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, cannot be used as a mechanism for grievance redressal or for challenging the correctness of information provided by a Public Authority.

Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari presided over the hearing on April 4, 2025, and delivered the common order for the clubbed appeals on April 22, 2025. The appeals were filed by Gayatri Sharma against the Public Information Officers (PIOs) of Prasar Bharati Secretariat, DG: Doordarshan , and Akashwani , Lucknow.

The Commission noted that while the appellant's applications ostensibly sought information under the RTI Act, their underlying intent was primarily to address grievances related to administrative matters, particularly concerning employee transfers, including that of her husband.

Case Background

The three appeals stemmed from RTI applications filed by the appellant in October 2023.

The first application (CIC/PBSEC/A/2023/148555) sought details of Doordarshan and Akashwani officers/employees in Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand who were posted against vacant posts other than their own, including reasons, ordering authority, and duration. The appellant prefaced this request with an assertion about Prasar Bharati 's control over its units and alleged favouritism in postings. The CPIO denied the information under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, citing that the information was not available in a consolidated format and its collection would disproportionately divert the public authority's resources. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld this, adding that queries seeking reasons or opinions do not fall within the definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of the Act.

The second application (CIC/PBSEC/A/2024/101296) concerned specific transfers of Accountants and Senior Clerks within the Agra cluster ( Bareilly , Rampur, Mathura Akashwani , and Mathura , Bareilly Doordarshan ) in September 2023. The appellant sought details about their names, transfer locations, relief dates, reasons for non-relief if applicable, travel allowance payment, and names of employees requesting relief but not relieved, alleging discrimination in the relief process for Accountants/UDCs. The CPIO transferred the request to the relevant PIOs in Lucknow, Agra Cluster, and the Northern Zone office. Some transferred requests resulted in replies stating "information is zero" or not available with that section. The FAA upheld the CPIO's response.

The third application (CIC/PBSEC/A/2024/100620) was explicitly framed around the appellant's husband's transfer from Akashwani Bareilly to Lucknow. The application detailed the medical conditions of the appellant, her husband, and her elderly father-in-law, highlighting family difficulties and court case attendance issues requiring her husband's presence in Bareilly . She alleged that other employees were working against different posts or in excess of sanctioned posts, while her husband was transferred despite pleas. She sought consolidated information similar to the first application, specifically for program, technical, and administrative staff in UP and Uttarakhand working against non-sanctioned posts or extra posts, or posts of other centres. The CPIO provided a detailed response explaining the cluster system transfer policy and confirming her husband's transfer was part of this policy and based on his own preferred option for Lucknow. The CPIO also provided details of one administrative staff member (Shri P.K. Sahu ) working against a higher post due to disability promotion and post unavailability, clarifying it was an administrative decision not requiring Ministry approval. However, consolidated data for other staff categories was denied due to non-availability and staff shortage. The CPIO also remarked on the appellant's "unnecessary interference" in her husband's service matters.

CIC's Observations and Decision

During the hearing, the appellant was not present. The respondents submitted that complete information based on available records had been provided. They reiterated that the appellant's queries constituted grievances and sought opinions, falling outside the purview of "information" as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. They also confirmed the appellant's husband joined his transferred place of posting in Lucknow in 2023, having himself opted for Lucknow.

The Commission reviewed the records and found that the CPIOs had provided factual, point-wise replies as per the available documents. The CIC emphasized that a CPIO acts as a communicator of existing information and is not required to create information as per an applicant's desire. The Commission found no infirmity in the CPIOs' responses, deeming them consistent with the provisions of the RTI Act.

The CIC further observed that the appellant was clearly pursuing a grievance and challenging the correctness of the information and administrative decisions rather than seeking information under the RTI Act. Despite this, the CPIOs had responded in the spirit of the Act.

Precedents Cited

The Commission reinforced its stance by referring to established legal principles:

• The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013, held that "proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
• Another judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017, stated that the CIC, being a statutory body, must act strictly within the confines of the Act and "is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
• The Apex Court in Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013, observed that the Information Commission, while deciding on access to information, "does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority."

Based on these observations and legal precedents, the Commission concluded that no intervention was required in the matter. The three second appeals were accordingly disposed of.

The judgment underscores the defined scope of the RTI Act, clarifying that it serves as a tool for accessing information held by public authorities, not as a platform for resolving personal grievances, challenging administrative decisions, or debating the accuracy of the information provided.