Many Indian citizens use the Right to Information (RTI) Act to get clarity on matters of public importance. This case highlights how the RTI Act is designed to access existing government records, not to seek opinions or test the general knowledge of Public Information Officers (PIOs). Understanding this distinction is crucial for anyone filing an RTI application to ensure their request is valid and leads to actionable information.
Background: What Information Was Sought
An RTI applicant, after seeing an advertisement featuring the Chairperson of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) with her photograph, filed an application with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). The applicant wanted to know if the post of UPA Chairperson was a constitutional or legal post. They also sought to know if the Prime Minister was aware of this post or if the Chairperson was appointed President of India. Essentially, the applicant was seeking clarification on the official status and origin of the UPA Chairperson’s position.
How the Public Authority Responded
The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) denied the information. The PIO stated that the questions posed applicant did not fall under the definition of “information” as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. This section clarifies that information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advice, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form, and information relating to any private body that can be accessed public authority under any other law. The PIO essentially argued that the applicant was asking for an opinion or a statement of fact that wasn’t necessarily documented in the PMO’s records.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
The matter was then brought before the Central Information Commission (CIC). During the hearing, the arguments likely focused on whether the applicant’s queries constituted a request for existing information that the PMO should possess or if it was an attempt to solicit an opinion or general knowledge from the PIO. The CIC examined the nature of the questions asked applicant in relation to the provisions of the RTI Act.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission (CIC) upheld the decision of the PIO. The Commission agreed that the appellant’s queries did not amount to a request for “information” as defined RTI Act. The CIC emphasized that the RTI Act is a tool to access existing records and documented information held authorities. It is not intended to be used to quiz a PIO or to test their general knowledge or to seek opinions on matters for which no official record might exist. The Commission found that there was no material record available in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) that could directly answer the specific questions posed applicant regarding the constitutional or legal status of the UPA Chairperson’s post. Therefore, the CIC rejected the appeal, stating that if no such material information exists within the public authority’s records, then none can be provided. The PMO, or any other central government public authority, can only provide information if it is officially recorded and accessible under the RTI Act.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Understand the Definition of “Information”: The RTI Act allows you to seek existing records and documents. It does not empower you to ask for opinions, subjective interpretations, or general knowledge from a PIO. Your request must be for tangible information that a public authority holds.
- Lesson 2: Focus on Existing Records: When filing an RTI application, ensure your questions are framed in a way that seeks existing official records, reports, decisions, or documents. Avoid questions that start with “Why,” “What is your opinion,” or “Is it true that…” unless they are directly linked to a verifiable record.
- Lesson 3: Be Realistic About What Public Authorities Hold: Public authorities are obligated to provide information they possess. If a particular piece of information, like the exact legal definition of a post not created , is not formally documented or defined within their records, they cannot be compelled to create it or provide an opinion on it under the RTI Act.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: Determine which government department or office would logically hold the records pertaining to your query. In this case, it was the PMO.
- Clearly Define Your Request: Formulate your questions precisely. If you are seeking clarification on a post, specify if you are asking for its creation date, the appointing authority, or any official gazette notifications related to it.
- Refer to the RTI Act (if applicable): While not always necessary, you can mention that you are seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005.
- Submit the Application: Pay the requisite fee and submit your application either online or offline to the designated PIO of the public authority.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide certified copies of any official documents, gazette notifications, or resolutions that define the constitutional or legal status of the post of [Name of Post] and indicate the appointing authority, if any, as per the records held office.
Conclusion
This case serves as a valuable reminder that the RTI Act is a powerful tool for transparency and accountability, but it must be used correctly. Citizens have the right to access information held government, but this access is limited to existing records. the scope of the RTI Act and framing their queries appropriately, applicants can significantly increase their chances of receiving the information they seek and contribute to a more informed and engaged citizenry.
