Many Indian citizens use the Right to Information (RTI) Act to access crucial information from government bodies. But what happens when the information you need isn’t directly held Public Authority you applied to? This case highlights a common challenge faced applicants and offers valuable insights into how the RTI Act handles such situations. Understanding this can empower you to file more effective RTI applications and navigate the process successfully.
Background: What Information Was Sought
In this particular RTI case, an applicant wanted to obtain the names and addresses of passengers who had arrived at Chennai Airport on a specific Sri Lankan Airlines flight. The application was filed with the Airports Authority of India (AAI), a public authority responsible for managing airports across the country. The applicant believed the AAI would have this passenger data. Following the provisions of the RTI Act, the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the AAI decided to transfer this application to the Manager of Sri Lankan Airlines Ltd. in Chennai. The appellant was duly informed about this transfer.
How the Public Authority Responded
The Airports Authority of India (AAI), through its PIO, stated that they were not the custodian of the passenger list information. They argued that their role was to manage airport operations, not to maintain detailed passenger records for airlines. Therefore, they believed the correct course of action was to forward the RTI application to Sri Lankan Airlines, which they considered to be the entity that would possess such information. However, they also noted that Sri Lankan Airlines is not a public authority under the RTI Act, implying that the information might not be accessible through an RTI application filed with them.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
The matter eventually reached the Central Information Commission (CIC) for adjudication. The CIC had to consider whether the AAI’s action of transferring the application was appropriate and whether the information sought could indeed be provided. The AAI’s stance was that they did not hold the information and had acted correctly the application to the airline. The crucial point of contention was whether the AAI, as the airport operator, had any residual information or responsibility regarding passenger manifests, even if the primary data was with the airline.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission (CIC) ultimately rejected the appeal. The Commission observed that the AAI, the original respondent public authority, was indeed not the custodian of the specific information requested appellant – the names and addresses of passengers. Therefore, the CIC found that the PIO’s response, which essentially stated they could not provide the information because they did not hold it, was appropriate. The CIC’s decision underscores a fundamental principle of the RTI Act: public authorities are obligated to provide information that they hold or control, not information that is solely in the possession of a non-public entity or another independent body.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Identify the Correct Public Authority: It is crucial to identify the specific public authority that is likely to hold the information you are seeking. If you are unsure, it is better to file with the authority that seems most relevant, but be prepared for them to potentially transfer your application if they are not the custodian.
- Lesson 2: Understand Custodianship of Information: The RTI Act mandates that information be provided public authority that holds it. If a public authority does not possess the information, they are generally not obligated to obtain it from a third party, especially if that third party is not a public authority themselves.
- Lesson 3: Be Prepared for Application Transfers: While the goal is to get information, the PIO may transfer your application under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act if they believe another public authority is the custodian of the information. You will be informed of this transfer. However, if the information lies with a private entity or a foreign entity not covered Act, the transfer might lead to the inability to access the information through RTI.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Step 1: Identify the Relevant Public Authority: Determine which government department or agency is most likely to possess the information you need. For airport-related passenger data, this might initially seem like the Airports Authority of India.
- Step 2: Draft Your RTI Application Clearly: State your request precisely. Be specific about the information you want, including dates, flight numbers (if known), and the nature of the information (e.g., names, addresses).
- Step 3: Pay the Application Fee: Attach the required fee (usually ₹10) in the prescribed manner (IPO, DD, or cash).
- Step 4: Submit Your Application: Send your application to the PIO of the identified public authority. Keep a copy for your records and note the date of submission.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, please provide details of any passenger data that the Airports Authority of India holds or has access to, pertaining to arrivals at [Airport Name] on [Date] by [Airline Name] flight [Flight Number, if known]. If the AAI does not hold this information directly, please specify which entity is the custodian of such data and the procedure, if any, to access it.
Conclusion
While this case resulted in the rejection of the appeal, it serves as an important reminder of the RTI Act’s framework. The Act is a powerful tool, but its effectiveness relies on understanding which public authorities hold what information. If the information you seek resides with private entities or bodies not defined as public authorities, accessing it through RTI might not be possible. Always aim to file your RTI application with the most appropriate public authority and be prepared for the possibility of application transfers or the information not being held public authority. This case emphasizes that the RTI Act can only compel public authorities to disclose information they possess, not to create or obtain information from third parties.
