Many citizens grapple with understanding the ‘why’ behind government rules and regulations. Often, the very preamble or the underlying reasons for a rule are missing, leaving us to guess its purpose. This can be particularly frustrating when dealing with complex legal or administrative matters. The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, empowers you to seek such clarifications. This case highlights how an RTI applicant sought to understand the foundational elements of important High Court rules, and what the Central Information Commission (CIC) ruled.
Background: What Information Was Sought
An RTI applicant approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court with a specific request. They wanted to know which Collegium of Judges had framed the existing Rules and Orders used High Court. Crucially, the applicant also requested a copy of the draft rules. Furthermore, they sought the preamble, objects, and reasons behind these rules, with a particular focus on Chapter 12 of Volume 1 of the High Court Rules and Orders, which pertains to the execution of decrees. The Public Information Officer (PIO) responded that the High Court did not possess the requested information. They explained that the rules were framed a very long time ago, in 1919, when the High Court was located in Lahore, and no such records were available to retrieve the desired details. The PIO also explicitly denied the existence of any preamble, objects, or reasons for these rules, asserting that the rules themselves did not contain any such components.
How the Public Authority Responded
The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Punjab & Haryana High Court provided a response indicating that the information sought was not available. The PIO cited the age of the rules (framed in 1919) and the historical relocation of the High Court from Lahore as reasons for the unavailability of records. They also directly stated that the rules lacked a preamble, objects, and reasons, implying that no such documents could be provided.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant passionately argued that the preamble and the objects and reasons for the rules were essential for understanding their meaning and purpose. They believed that without this foundational information, the rules remained obscure. The respondent, representing the public authority, reiterated their earlier stand: they did not possess any such documents and therefore could not furnish them to the appellant.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission (CIC) carefully considered the arguments presented sides. The Commission’s core observation was whether the High Court actually possessed any material record relating to the information the appellant had requested. After examining the submissions, the CIC ultimately rejected the appeal. The Commission concluded that there was no document in the possession of the High Court that contained the desired information. Crucially, the CIC stated that a Public Information Officer cannot be compelled to invent or create information that does not exist. This decision underscores a fundamental principle of the RTI Act: it is a tool for accessing existing information, not for generating new records or forcing authorities to recall or reconstruct historical documents that are no longer available.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Information Must Exist: The RTI Act allows you to seek information that is held under the control of a public authority. If the information genuinely does not exist or is irretrievably lost, the PIO is not obligated to provide it.
- Lesson 2: Historical Records Have Limitations: For very old records, especially those predating modern record-keeping practices or affected events like partition, the chances of finding specific documents like preambles or objects can be slim.
- Lesson 3: Understand PIO’s Role: A PIO’s duty is to provide information that is available. They cannot be expected to create new documents, conduct research beyond their existing records, or speculate on historical intentions if no records exist.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Public Authority: Clearly determine which government department or public body holds the information you need.
- Draft Your Application Carefully: Be specific about the information you are seeking. Mention the exact rules, orders, or documents you are interested in.
- State Your Purpose (Optional but helpful): Briefly explaining why you need the information can sometimes help the PIO understand the context, but it’s not mandatory.
- Submit and Track: File your application with the designated PIO and keep a record of your application number for future reference and follow-up.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide a copy of the preamble, objects, and reasons, if any, for the framing of [mention specific rule or order number and its subject matter], along with details of the authority or committee responsible for its creation.
Conclusion
While this case might seem like a setback for the applicant, it reinforces the practical boundaries of the RTI Act. It’s a powerful tool for transparency, but it operates within the realm of existing, accessible information. As citizens, understanding these limitations helps us file more effective RTI applications and manage our expectations. If you are seeking clarity on the genesis of rules or regulations, remember to frame your request precisely and be aware that historical records may have gaps. Nevertheless, the RTI Act remains your strongest ally in the quest for governmental accountability and transparency.
