Central Information Commission
Ranjan vs Indira Gandhi National Centre For The ... on 17 April, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/IGNCA/A/2025/604118
CIC/IGNCA/A/2025/604124
Ranjan ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: M/o Culture,
New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
Sl. No. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of
Appeal RTI CPIO's First FAA's Second
No. Application Reply Appeal Order Appeal
1. 604118 21.08.2023 Not on 01.10.2024 24.10.2024 21.01.2025
record
2. 604124 21.08.2024 09.09.2024 01.10.2024 24.10.2024 21.01.2025
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar
RTI Applications and same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 13.04.2026
Date of Decision: 13.04.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/IGNCA/A/2025/604118 Page 1 of 13
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.08.2023 seeking information on the following points:
1. Provide a copy of the SOP, effective in August 2023, in which there is a provision (with salary) for a Programme Assistant (PrA) in Regional Centres (RC) of Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts (IGNCA).
2. Mention name(s) and date(s) of the newspaper(s) in which the advt. for the vacancy of a PrA for RC Guwahati (RCG) was published in 2023?
3. Mention name and designation of the outside expert suggested by the Regional Director (RD) of RCG for the selection committee for PrA. Was that expert replaced by the Director (Administration) of IGNCA? Provide copies of RCG note sheet and the Director (Admin) order both regarding the selection committee.
4. Did IGNCA Head Office official instruct the RCG RD via message on competent authority preference for/against certain candidates during the interview for PrA?
5. Provide name-wise highest academic qualification and total years of work experience of all candidates appearing in the interview for PrA.etc. 1.1. CPIO has furnished reply dated 20.09.2024 as under:
"..Please refer to your RTI Application Registration No. IGNCA/R/E/24/00020 dated 21.08.2024 regarding certain information pertaining to Regional Centre Guwahati of the IGNCA. In this connection, your attention is invited to the Clause 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 vide which "the information" obtained under the RTI Act mentions the following:-
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, log books, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any Page 2 of 13 private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
2. In view of the above facts, the information sought by you does not fall under the ambit of the aforesaid Clause..."
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.10.2024. The FAA vide order dated 24.10.2024 observed as under:
3. The CPIO is hereby advised to exert more care and precaution in this regard in future.
4. In view of the aforesaid fact, the Appeal dated 01/10/2024 is disposed of accordingly.
1.3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 21.01.2025.
1.4. A written submission dated 16.03.2026 has been received from the CPIO and the same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..This written submission is respectfully filed on behalf of the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts (IGNCA), Ministry of Culture, Government of India, in response to the notice issued by the Hon'ble Central Information Commission in connection with the second appeal arising out of the RTI application dated 21.08.2024 submitted by the appellant.
It is respectfully submitted that the RTI application was duly examined by the CPIO and a reply was furnished on 09.09.2024 within the time limit prescribed under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The appellant thereafter preferred a First Appeal dated 01.10.2024 which was considered and disposed of by the First Appellate Authority on 24.10.2024. Thus, the respondent public authority acted strictly in accordance with the statutory procedure and timelines laid down under the RTI Act.
Page 3 of 13Upon examination of the RTI application, it was observed that several queries raised by the appellant were not requests for identifiable records or documents available with the public authority. Rather, many of the questions were framed in the nature of explanations, clarifications, interpretations and justifications of administrative decisions. Certain questions were also based upon assumptions or presumptions and effectively required the public authority to deduce or create information which does not exist in material form on record. It is respectfully submitted that such queries fall outside the definition of 'information' as provided under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Section 2(f) defines information as material in any form including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, circulars, orders, reports and papers that are held by or under the control of the public authority. The Act therefore provides access only to information which exists and is available on record.
The RTI Act does not require a public authority to create information, provide explanations, or answer interrogatory questions seeking reasons or justification for administrative actions. This legal position has been authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011), wherein it was held that a public authority is not required to collect or collate non-available information nor is it required to provide advice or opinion to an applicant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further clarified in Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer (2010) that the RTI Act does not oblige a public authority to explain the reasons for its decisions unless such reasons are already available on record. Therefore, questions seeking explanations, interpretations or justifications do not fall within the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Page 4 of 13The Hon'ble Central Information Commission has consistently followed this settled legal principle. In several decisions the Commission has held that interrogatory questions seeking explanations, opinions or reasons cannot be treated as 'information' under Section 2(f). In the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto vs Goa State Information Commission (CIC decision cited in multiple rulings), it was held that the RTI Act does not cast a duty upon public authorities to answer questions which require drawing inferences or providing explanations. Similarly, in the case of Smt. Shashi Bhushan v. Directorate of Education (CIC Decision), the Commission observed that the RTI Act only provides access to records that exist and are available with the public authority and that the CPIO cannot be compelled to generate answers to questions seeking interpretation or explanation.
In another decision of the Commission in the matter of K. Lall v. Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (CIC/AT/A/2006/00045), it was reiterated that the RTI Act provides access to existing material records and does not oblige the public authority to create or compile information in order to respond to interrogatory queries.
It is further relevant to submit that certain aspects referred to in the RTI application relate to issues concerning a complaint of sexual harassment at the workplace that had been examined by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of the institution. The ICC is a statutory body constituted under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
Under Section 16 of the said Act, the contents of the complaint, statements made by the aggrieved person and witnesses, the proceedings of the inquiry, recommendations of the Internal Complaints Committee, and the identity of the concerned persons are required to be kept strictly confidential. Disclosure of Page 5 of 13 such information is expressly prohibited by law and therefore cannot be provided under the RTI Act.
It is therefore respectfully submitted that the response furnished by the CPIO was made after careful consideration of the provisions of the RTI Act as well as the applicable statutory safeguards relating to confidentiality. The denial of certain information was neither arbitrary nor malafide but was strictly in conformity with the legal provisions governing access to information. In view of the facts stated above, it is most respectfully submitted that the reply furnished by the CPIO was lawful, reasoned and fully consistent with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the statutory confidentiality requirements under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. In these circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Commission may kindly take the above submissions on record and be pleased to dismiss the present appeal. It is further prayed that no adverse inference or penalty proceedings may be initiated against the CPIO as the response was provided in good faith and in accordance with law..."
Second Appeal No. CIC/IGNCA/A/2024/604124
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. From 14th August to 31st August 2023, did the Programme Assistant (PrA) employed with the Regional Centre Guwahati (RCG) of Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts (IGNCA) travel in an office car? Was there any written instruction/approval/instruction to do so?Page 6 of 13
2. Provide a copy of the statements submitted to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of IGNCA by the driver of the car hired by RCG for 24th August 2023 and also the director of the play staged on 24th August 2023.
3. Provide copies of all emails sent by the PrA of RCG to the Head Office from 24th August 2023 to 17th October 2023.
4. Provide copies of all emails sent by the Director (Administration) IGNCA to RCG (addressed to the office or any official) from 24th August to 17th October 2023.
5. Provide copies of emails sent by the Director (Admin) to the agency deploying security (SIS Ltd) at RCG (with all CCs) from 11th September to 17th October 2023.
6. Under which Act, the Director (Admin) can prevent the Regional Director (RD) (even on leave) from entering RCG, a public property? Provide a copy of the page of the said Act..etc. 2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 09.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
""information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, log books, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.""
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.10.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 24.10.2024 observed as under:-
3. On examination of the original RTI application of the Appellant, it is evident that many leading questions based on assumptions and presumptions have been solicited. Many questions beginning with what, which, who, whether, was, etc. and Page 7 of 13 ending with mark of interrogation have been raised in the original RTI application. Such questions with interpolation of personal prejudice are normally discouraged under the RTI Act.
4. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts, it appears that the reply furnished by the CPIO to the Applicant is as per the provisions contained in the RTI Act.
5. In view of the aforesaid fact, the Appeal dated 01/10/2024 is disposed of accordingly.
2.3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 21.01.2025.
2.4. A written submission dated 16.03.2026 has been received from the CPIO and the same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..This written submission is respectfully filed on behalf of the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts (IGNCA), Ministry of Culture, Government of India, in response to the notice issued by the Hon'ble Central Information Commission in connection with the second appeal arising out of the RTI application dated 21.08.2024 submitted by the appellant.
It is respectfully submitted that the RTI application was duly examined by the CPIO and a reply was furnished on 09.09.2024 within the time limit prescribed under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The appellant thereafter preferred a First Appeal dated 01.10.2024 which was considered and disposed of by the First Appellate Authority on 24.10.2024. Thus, the respondent public authority acted strictly in accordance with the statutory procedure and timelines laid down under the RTI Act.
Page 8 of 13Upon examination of the RTI application, it was observed that several queries raised by the appellant were not requests for identifiable records or documents available with the public authority. Rather, many of the questions were framed in the nature of explanations, clarifications, interpretations and justifications of administrative decisions. Certain questions were also based upon assumptions or presumptions and effectively required the public authority to deduce or create information which does not exist in material form on record.
It is respectfully submitted that such queries fall outside the definition of 'information' as provided under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Section 2(f) defines information as material in any form including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, circulars, orders, reports and papers that are held by or under the control of the public authority. The Act therefore provides access only to information which exists and is available on record.
The RTI Act does not require a public authority to create information, provide explanations, or answer interrogatory questions seeking reasons or justification for administrative actions. This legal position has been authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011), wherein it was held that a public authority is not required to collect or collate non-available information nor is it required to provide advice or opinion to an applicant.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further clarified in Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer (2010) that the RTI Act does not oblige a public authority to explain the reasons for its decisions unless such reasons are already available on record. Therefore, questions seeking explanations, Page 9 of 13 interpretations or justifications do not fall within the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
The Hon'ble Central Information Commission has consistently followed this settled legal principle. In several decisions the Commission has held that interrogatory questions seeking explanations, opinions or reasons cannot be treated as 'information' under Section 2(f). In the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto vs Goa State Information Commission (CIC decision cited in multiple rulings), it was held that the RTI Act does not cast a duty upon public authorities to answer questions which require drawing inferences or providing explanations.
Similarly, in the case of Smt. Shashi Bhushan v. Directorate of Education (CIC Decision), the Commission observed that the RTI Act only provides access to records that exist and are available with the public authority and that the CPIO cannot be compelled to generate answers to questions seeking interpretation or explanation.
In another decision of the Commission in the matter of K. Lall v. Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (CIC/AT/A/2006/00045), it was reiterated that the RTI Act provides access to existing material records and does not oblige the public authority to create or compile information in order to respond to interrogatory queries.
It is further relevant to submit that certain aspects referred to in the RTI application relate to issues concerning a complaint of sexual harassment at the workplace that had been examined by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of the institution. The ICC is a statutory body constituted under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
Page 10 of 13Under Section 16 of the said Act, the contents of the complaint, statements made by the aggrieved person and witnesses, the proceedings of the inquiry, recommendations of the Internal Complaints Committee, and the identity of the concerned persons are required to be kept strictly confidential. Disclosure of such information is expressly prohibited by law and therefore cannot be provided under the RTI Act.
It is therefore respectfully submitted that the response furnished by the CPIO was made after careful consideration of the provisions of the RTI Act as well as the applicable statutory safeguards relating to confidentiality. The denial of certain information was neither arbitrary nor malafide but was strictly in conformity with the legal provisions governing access to information.
In view of the facts stated above, it is most respectfully submitted that the reply furnished by the CPIO was lawful, reasoned and fully consistent with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the statutory confidentiality requirements under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
In these circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Commission may kindly take the above submissions on record and be pleased to dismiss the present appeal. It is further prayed that no adverse inference or penalty proceedings may be initiated against the CPIO as the response was provided in good faith and in accordance with law..."
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Shri Shajamal Houque- Advocate participated in the hearing on behalf of Appellant.Page 11 of 13
Respondent: Dr. Dileep Kumar Sant, Assistant Professor - participated in the hearing.
3. Shri Shajmal Houque stated that the information sought by the Appellant has not been provided by the PIO till date. He averred that the CPIO has not furnished reply in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. He averred that point-wise reply has not been provided by the PIO which is gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. Further in case any information is denied same should be denied as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
4. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought by the Appellant relates to POSH Act complaint. He stated that he would provide a point-wise reply with respect to queries raised in the instant case. Decision:
5. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that main premise of the instant Second Appeal is that point-wise reply has not been provided by the CPIO. Accordingly, the CPIO is directed to examine the RTI Application afresh and furnish a point-wise reply to the Appellant within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report be filed with the Commission within a week thereafter. In doing so, the CPIO must ensure that any information which is exempted from disclosure should not be disclosed. The matters are disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Page 12 of 13 Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Deputy Secretary & CPIO, Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts (M/o. Culture), Sutradhara, Janpath Building, Near Western Court, Janpath, New Delhi-110001.
2 Ranjan Page 13 of 13 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)