Many citizens approach the RTI Act seeking clarity and accountability from government bodies. Often, this involves trying to access records from investigations or inquiries. When these records are declared “not traceable,” it can be frustrating for the applicant. This case highlights what happens when you ask for documents from an inquiry ordered Supreme Court, and how the Central Information Commission (CIC) handles such situations when the records are lost. Understanding this can empower you to navigate similar RTI challenges.
Background: What Information Was Sought
An RTI applicant wanted to obtain copies of statements recorded and documents collected during an inquiry. This inquiry was conducted DIG of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under the orders of the Supreme Court of India itself, in a significant case (WP(Cr) No. 15 of 1994). The applicant believed these records would provide crucial information related to the inquiry. When the Public Information Officer (PIO) responded, they stated that despite their best efforts, the requested records could no longer be found or traced within the CBI.
How the Public Authority Responded
The initial response from the PIO was that the records were “not any longer traceable.” This is a common, albeit often disappointing, response in RTI matters when information cannot be located. In this specific case, during the subsequent hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the CBI representative reiterated this position. They informed the CIC that the statements of individuals who were examined during the inquiry, along with other related documents, were indeed no longer available in their office. The respondent also pointed to an existing order from the Supreme Court related to the very case for which the inquiry was held. This Supreme Court order had apparently stated that all records filed before the Court in connection with that case could be obtained parties involved, suggesting that the applicant might have had an avenue to access the information directly from the court records if they were submitted there.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
The Central Information Commission (CIC) heard the appeal. The core of the hearing revolved around the CBI’s submission that the requested documents were lost and could not be provided. The CBI’s representative presented their case, emphasizing that they had made efforts to locate the records but were unsuccessful. They also brought the Supreme Court’s observation to the CIC’s attention, implying that the applicant might have had prior opportunities to access the information through the court itself. The applicant’s perspective, while not detailed in the provided summary of the decision, would have likely focused on the importance of the information sought and the expectation that public authorities maintain records of significant inquiries, especially those ordered highest court.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission, after considering the submissions from both sides, ultimately rejected the appeal. The CIC’s decision was based on the crucial finding that the desired records were no longer traceable within the CBI. The Commission acknowledged the CBI’s assertion that the documents were lost and therefore could not be furnished to the applicant. This highlights a fundamental principle within the RTI Act: while the Act mandates access to information, it cannot compel a public authority to create or produce information that does not exist or has been irretrievably lost. The CIC’s role here was to assess whether the public authority had genuinely made efforts and whether the information was indeed unavailable, rather than to force the creation of new records or to penalize the authority for lost documents, unless there was evidence of deliberate destruction or negligence beyond reasonable scope.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Information must exist to be provided. The RTI Act allows you to access existing information. If records have been genuinely lost, destroyed in due course, or never created, a public authority cannot be compelled to provide them. The PIO’s duty is to provide information that is held .
- Lesson 2: Document the search efforts. When a PIO claims records are not traceable, it’s important for them to demonstrate that a reasonable search was conducted. The CIC will consider if the public authority has made genuine efforts before accepting the “not traceable” claim.
- Lesson 3: Consider alternative sources. In cases involving inquiries or proceedings, especially those with judicial oversight, explore if the information might be available through other avenues, such as court records or other related public authorities, as suggested in this case Supreme Court’s observation.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: Determine which government department or agency is the custodian of the records you seek. In this case, it was the CBI.
- Clearly Define Your Request: Be specific about the statements, documents, or information you are seeking. Mention the inquiry, its purpose, and any relevant case numbers or dates.
- Mention Relevant Orders or Proceedings: If the inquiry was conducted under specific court orders or government directives, mention them in your application to add context and legitimacy.
- Be Prepared for “Not Traceable” Responses: Understand that sometimes records are lost. While you can appeal, focus on the possibility of information being unavailable and consider alternative avenues.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, please provide certified copies of all statements recorded and all documents collected during the inquiry conducted by [Name of Authority/Department] concerning [brief description of the inquiry/subject matter], which took place on or around [Date of Inquiry, if known]. If the said records are not traceable, please provide details of the efforts made to locate them and the reasons for their unavailability.
Conclusion
While this case did not result in the applicant obtaining the desired documents, it serves as an important reminder of the practical limitations of the RTI Act. The Act is a powerful tool for transparency, but it operates on the principle of accessing existing information. When records are lost through no fault of the applicant or deliberate obstruction, the CIC will likely uphold the public authority’s inability to provide them. However, understanding these nuances helps RTI users manage their expectations and strategize their information requests more effectively, always striving for transparency and accountability within the framework of the law.
