Query based on conjecture, speculation not information under RTI Act: CIC

Public Authority not required to provide advice or opinion

Dismisses plea for ACB records on jurisdictional violations

Mohinder Verma

JAMMU, Aug 31: Holding that the Right to Information Act provides access to information available and existing on record and does not require a Public Authority to furnish information involving drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has dismissed a Second Appeal and complaint concerning information sought from the Anti-Corruption Bureau, J&K, about alleged violations of jurisdictional limits.

Follow the Daily Excelsior channel on WhatsApp

The Central Information Commission, while deciding the Second Appeal, relied upon the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Another Versus Aditya Bandhopadhyay & Others to examine the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

The Commission found that the information sought by the appellant under Point No.2 of his RTI application was based on conjecture and speculation, and did not conform to the definition of information under Section 2(f) of the Act.

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment, the transparency watchdog of the country said, "RTI Act provides access to information that is available and existing. A Public Authority is not required to furnish information which requires drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions".

The Commission further said that a Public Authority is not required to provide "advice" or "opinion" to an applicant, nor is it required to obtain and furnish any opinion or advice to an applicant, adding the query raised by the appellant was not a straightforward request for an existing record but was based upon a situation described and presumed by him.

The case originated from an RTI application dated November 13, 2024, filed before the CPIO, ACB, Jammu. While the applicant sought a copy of the latest Government order pertaining to jurisdictional limits of various ACB police stations, the information sought was specifically in respect of cases where the SSP/SHO of an ACB Police Station at Jammu, Rajouri, Udhampur or Doda had allegedly exceeded/trespassed his jurisdictional limits, resulting in registration of an FIR and subsequent arrest of a Government officer/official. The applicant sought the information for the period from July 2020 to December 31, 2022.

The CPIO & ADO, ACB, J&K, in his reply dated November 21, 2024, supplied the latest Government order pertaining to jurisdictional limits of various ACB police stations. On Point No.2, the CPIO stated that information regarding details, registration, final reports, charge sheets and status of cases from September 2019 to September 2024 was already available in the public domain and had been uploaded on the ACB website.

The CPIO further stated that the procedure for laying a trap against any public servant was prescribed in and followed as per the mandate of the Vigilance Manual and in compliance with mandatory provisions from time to time.

Dissatisfied with the response concerning Point No.2, the appellant filed a First Appeal on December 3, 2024, alleging that the reply was vague, incomplete and misleading. He contended that the information supplied regarding registration, final reports, charge sheets and status of cases from September 2019 to September 2024 did not in any manner, even remotely, pertain to the information specifically sought by him. According to the appellant, the information sought related to the period from July 2020 to December 31, 2022.

The FAA & AIG (HQ), ACB, J&K, Jammu, however, upheld the CPIO's reply vide order dated December 13, 2024. The appellant thereafter approached the CIC with the Second Appeal and complaint dated December 30, 2024.

During the hearing, the appellant narrated the factual background of his suspension from service and submitted that the information sought at Point No.2 was imperative to establish certain alleged improprieties carried out against him.

The appellant alleged that the respondent office had not only failed to provide a proper reply but had also failed to appreciate that the information sought related specifically to the period from July 2020 to December 31, 2022.

The respondent, represented by Nadeem Parvez, CPIO & Senior Prosecution Officer, submitted that the reply had been provided based on the wisdom and understanding of the then CPIO. It was further submitted that even in terms of his understanding, there was no such record which could inform whether the jurisdiction was exceeded in the instant case.

After considering the rival submissions, the Commission observed that the information sought under Point No.2 does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, as the appellant had conjectured and speculated the availability of data based on a situation described by him.

The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in Section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act, the CIC said.

The Commission also termed the contention regarding the period mentioned in the CPIO's reply as a labored argument, observing that the CPIO's reply was inclusive of the time period referred to by the appellant.

"Considering the unspecific and deduction/interpretation-based nature of the RTI query, the reply provided by the CPIO does not warrant any intervention when the intent of the CPIO was to facilitate the Appellant/ Complainant with relevant information," the Commission observed.

Accordingly, the Second Appeal was dismissed.