Central Information Commission
Amanpreet Singh Gill vs Army Hq on 7 August, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/IARMY/A/2024/100016,
CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/110240 &
CIC/IARMY/A/2024/118507
AMANPREET SINGH GILL .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO
RTI Cell, Addl. DG AE, G 6 D 1 Wing,
Integrated Headquarter of MoD (Army)
Sena Bhawan, Gate No 4,
New Delhi - 110 011 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23.07.2025
Date of Decision : 06.08.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned second appeals are clubbed together as the Appellant
is common, subject-matter is similar in nature and hence are being disposed
of through a common order.
1. CIC/IARMY/A/2024/100016
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.10.2023
CPIO replied on : 24.11.2023
First appeal filed on : 04.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 20.12.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01.01.2024
Page 1 of 14
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 20.10.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. I, Amanpreet Singh Gill Son of Mr. Gurpreet Singh Gill resident of House No 229 Sector 16 A Chandigarh wish to seek information under RTI Act, 2005. The information needed pertains to:-
(a) Can Call Detail Records (CDR) and the Customer Application Form (CAF) of a witness in a Court of Inquiry be obtained from the mobile service provider without his permission in civil proceedings which is not a criminal proceeding?
(b) Is it the infringement of privacy of a witness in case his Call Detail Records (CDR) and the Customer Application Form (CAF) are obtained without the consent of a witness in a Court of Inquiry?
(c) is a public servant who obtains the Call Detail Records (CDR) and the Customer Application Form (CAF) in an illegal manner in a Court of Inquiry relating to a civil matter and not a criminal proceeding liable for punishment under the military law/Criminal Law?"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 03.11.2023 stating as under:
"Your RTI application has physically transferred to The RTI Cell, Army Hars., ADG AE G-6, D-1 Wing, Sena Bhawan, IHQ of MoD Army, New Delhi-110011 Tele 011-23019585, Fax 011-23335675, Email. rticell-army at nic.in on 02/11/2023 vide MoD ID no. 19 1/2020/DMA Coord."
3. The CPIO, IHQ of MoD furnished a reply to the Appellant on 24.11.2023 stating as under:
"1. It is intimated that no specific information as defined in section 2 (f) of RTI Act 2005 has been sought by you. Your request for information is vague, non specific, interrogatory and seeking clarifications, which is out of purview of RTI Act 2005 and PIO is not obliged to provide the same. It is clarified that only such information can be supplied under the Act which already exists and is held by the public authority and sought for in clear terms. You are informed to approach the concerned administrative office directly with specific details or supporting documents for related clarifications. This disposes your RTI application mentioned at Para 1 above."
4. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 20.12.2023, held as under.
"1. after having perused all the records and after hearing views of the nodal officer, I find that appropriate reply has already been provisioned to the Page 2 of 14 appellant by the CPIO vide RTI Cell letter No A/810027/RTI/OL-83370 dated 24 Nov 2023. I, therefore, uphold the decision of the CPIO. However, I direct CPIO to transfer the initial application and first appeal to MCTE, Mhow.
2. The appeal is therefore disposed of accordingly."
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
2. CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/110240 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.12.2023 CPIO replied on : 30.01.2024 First appeal filed on : 11.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 03.04.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 03.04.2024 Information sought:
6. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 12.12.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. I, Colonel Amanpreet Singh Gill, resident of H No 229, Sec 16-A, Chandigarh - 160015, wish to seek information under RTI Act, 2005. The information needed pertains to:-
(a) Does Indian Army Authorities allow seizing/confiscating digital artifacts belonging to the Armed Forces personal with and without his/her consent?
(b) If yes, please inform under which provisions of law/policy?
(c) Does Indian Army conduct the forensics of digital artifacts confiscated/ seized from its personnel?
(d) If yes, please inform under which provisions of law/policy?
(e) Does the consent of army personnel whose digital artifacts are confiscated/ seized taken before conducting the forensics of his digital artifacts?
(f) If yes, please inform under which provisions of law/policy?
(g) is access to personal e-mail accounts, any other accounts wrt internet domain and other social media accounts analyzed at Indian Army Cyber Forensic Lab, New Delhi as per existing privacy laws on the subject?
(h) if yes, please inform under which provisions of law/policy?
(j) Does Indian Army Cyber Forensic Lab, New Delhi conduct forensics of digital artifacts of Indian Army personnel for cases relating to personal Page 3 of 14 issues such as allegations arising out of matrimonial disharmony, cases relating to civilian employees in army establishment, allegations of financial irregularities by army personal in individual capacity, general act prejudicial to good order and military discipline etc.?
(k) If yes, please inform under which provisions of law/policy?"
7. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 20.12.2023 stating as under:
"Your RTI application has physically transferred to The RTI Cell, Army Hqrs., ADG AE G-6, D-1 Wing, Sena Bhawan, IHQ of MoD Army, New Delhi-110011 Tele 011-23019585, Fax 011-23335675, Email. rticell-army at nic.in on 18/12/2023 vide MoD ID no. 19 1/2020/DMA Coord."
8. The CPIO, IHQ of MoD(Army) furnished a reply to the Appellant on 30.01.2024 stating as under:
"(a) Information on Para 1 (a) to (d). An extract of Para 2 of Note of concerned agency of this HQ, vide which information pertaining to your query has been provided, is enclosed herewith.
(b) Information on Para 1 (e) to (k). It is intimated that no specific information as defined in section 2 (f) of RTI Act 2005 has been sought by you. Your request for information is hypothetical, interrogatory and seeking opinion, reasons & clarifications of the PIO on an issue as perceived by you, which is out of purview of RTI Act 2005 and PIO is not obliged to provide the same. It is clarified that only such information can be supplied under the Act which already exists and is held by the public authority and sought for in clear terms.
This disposes your RTI application dated 12 Dec 2023.
Encl. is as under:
S. No Query Reply
1 Does Indian Army Authorities As per Para 20 of policy on 'Use
allow seizing/confiscating of Social Media Platforms and
digital artifacts belonging to Mobile phones in IA' dt 08 Jun
the Armed Forces personal 2020, for The concerned Comd
with and without his/her GS (Int) on detection of critical
consent? cyber violation will detl a BOO,
which will incl a rep from local int
unit to inv and seize the digital
Page 4 of 14
artifacts cyber forensics under
intimation to DGMI/MI-9.
2 If yes, please inform under As per Para 20 of policy on 'Use
which provisions of of Social Media Platforms and
law/policy? Mobile phones in IA' dt 08 Jun
2020. Further refer DGMI/MI-9
letter No A/31654/MI-9 dt 15 Oct
19 on seizure of digital artefacts.
3 Does Indian Army conduct the Please refer DGMI/MI-9 letter No
forensics of digital artifacts A/31654/MI-9 dt 15 Oct 19 on confiscated/ seized from its seizure of digital artefacts. personnel?
4 If yes, please inform under
which provisions of
law/policy?
9. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.02.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 03.04.2024, held as under.
"After having perused all the records and after hearing views of the nodal officer, I find that reply provisioned to the appellant by the CPIO vide RTI Cell letter No A/810027/RTI/OL-84116 dated 30 Jan 2024 is not complete. I, further direct CPIO to obtain additional information from concerned agency of Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army) and provision the same to the appellant within two weeks on receipt of this order.
The appeal is therefore disposed of accordingly."
10. In compliance of FAA's order the PIO furnished a revised reply to the appellant on 16.04.2024 as under:
"1. Refer Speaking Order of the Appellate Authority issued vide their letter No B/87008/AG/PM/RTI-6772 dt 03 Apr 2024.
2. In compliance of Speaking Order under reference, two extract of Para (2 (a) to (k) and 2) of Note of concerned agency of this Headquarters is enclosed herewith.
Encl. is as under:
(a) & (b) The subject aspect is beyond the purview of this office.
(c)Yes
(d) Cyber Forensic Lab at ACG, vide the Gazette Notification No 3530 dt 04 Sep 18 has been accredited by Meity under section 79A of IT Act 2000 Page 5 of 14
(e) The subject aspect is beyond the purview of this office. Refer Para 516 of Regulation for the Army (Revised Edition), 1987 read in conjunction with Policy on "Use of Social Media Platforms and Mobile phones in IA' dated 08 Jun 2020.
(f) NA
(g) Cyber Forensic Lab conducts media forensics only as per the Gazette Notification No 3530 dt 04 Sep 18 accredited by MeitY under section 79A of IT Act 2000.
(h) Please refer Para 2 (g) above.
(j) The Lab undertakes forensic investigation of digital artefacts for all cases processed through proper channel.
(k) Authority for forensic investigation already given at Para 2 (g) above."
11. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
3. CIC/IARMY/A/2024/118507 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27.02.2024 CPIO replied on : 14.03.2024 First appeal filed on : 16.04.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 13.05.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11.06.2024 Information sought:
12. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 27.02.2024 seeking the following information:
"1. I wish to seek following information under RTI Act, 2005.
(a) Is it a punishable offence in the Armed Forces of India for a senior serving armed forces officer to use derogatory remarks/language/actions against his subordinates in front of other officers or subordinates?
(b) Please specify the policy/ act under which use of derogatory remarks/ language/ actions by a senior Armed Forces officer against his subordinates in front of other officers or subordinates is punishable in the Armed Forces of India and provide copy of the same.
(Please specify which all channels of communication are available to aggrieved party/ armed forces personnel to report matters relating to ill Page 6 of 14 treatment of subordinates by senior serving officer of Armed Forces of India and please provide a copy of such policy
(d) Please specify various mechanisms available in the Armed Forces of India to seek redressal of ill-treatment of subordinate/ armed forces personnel by a senior Armed Forces officer
(e) Does workplace harassment considered as ill treatment of subordinate by senior serving officer in the Armed Forces of India.
(f) Please specify under which policy workplace harassment is considered as ill-treatment of subordinate by senior serving officer in the Armed Forces al India and provide a copy of the same
(g)Is there specific time duration for addressing redressal of grievance of armed forces personnel or aggrieved party in Armed Forces of India
(h) Please specify the various time duration in which the redressal is to be granted on the complaint of the aggrieved party/ armed forces personnel by the senior reviewing officer of the Armed Forces of India and provide a copy of such policy
(i) Please specify any alternate methods of seeking redressal in Armed Forces of India in case the grievance remains unaddressed/unanswered within the specified timeframe by the senior reviewing officer and provide a copy of such policy
(k) Please specify all alternate methods of seeking redressal in case the grievance by armed forces personnel remains unaddressed/unanswered within the specified timeframe by the senior reviewing officer in the Armed Forces of India and provide a copy of the policy on the same,
(l) Please specify the departmental/ penal actions in the Armed forces of India for failure of reviewing officer to dispose-off a redressal in a time bound manner and provide a copy of the policy on the same.
(l) Are members of Armed forces of india permitted to approach Armed Forces Tribunal for grievances relating to ill-treatment of subordinate?
(m) Please specify in which all circumstances/ conditions can a serving armed forces personnel approach the Armed Forces Tribunal for redressal of his grievance and provide the policy on the same"
13. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 06.03.2024 stating as under:
"Your RTI application has been physically transferred on 05/03/2024 to the following 1. RTI Cell, Army Hars., ADG AE, G-6, D-1 Wing, Sena Bhawan, IHQ of MoD Army, New Delhi-110011 Tele 011-23019585, Fax 011-23335675, Email, rticell-army at nic.in 2. RTI Cell, Naval Hars, Room no. 201, C Wing, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi Tele. 011-23010680 Fax 011- 23010680 3. RTI Cell, Indian Air Force Hors, Roam no. 165, Air HQ VB, Page 7 of 14 Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110106 Tele 011-23060231/5160 Fax 23017605 vide MoD ID no. 19 1/2020/DMA Coord."
14. The CPIO (N)/ Commander furnished a reply to the Appellant on 11.03.2024 stating as under:
"No specific information has been sought by you. It is intimated that only such information can be provided to the applicant which already exists in material form with a public authority under section 2 (f) of RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO is not supposed to create information or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions in accordance with DoP&T OM No. 1/69/2007-IR dated 27 Feb 08 and 1/18/2011-IR dated 16 Sep 11, which are available in public domain. Secondly, also intimated that the RTI is not a platform for redressal of grievance. In this regard, the Hon'ble CIC order CIC/INAVY/A/2022/102702 dated 25 Jan 23 is relevant, which is available in public domain."
15. The CPIO, IHQ of MoD (Army) furnished a reply to the Appellant on 14.03.2024 stating as under:
"1. It is intimated that no specific information as defined in section 2 (f) of RTI Act 2005 has been sought by you. Your request for information is vague, hypothetical, interrogatory & seeking opinion / clarifications which is not feasible under RTI Act 2005 as it does not constitute for information. Further, PIO is not obliged to provide the same. It is clarified that only such information can be supplied under the Act which already exists and is held by the public authority and sought for in clear terms. However, you are informed to seek related assistance / clarifications directly from concerned office in case specific / clear terms.
2. This disposes your RTI application mentioned at Para 1 above."
16. The CPIO/ Wing Commander, Air HQ furnished a reply to the Appellant on 09.04.2024 stating as under:
"Information sought vide your RTI application is mentioned below:-
(a) Para 1 (a), (e), (g) & (1). After the examination of these paras, it appears that you have seeking query/clarification of the public authority giving a hypothetical situation which does not come under the ambit of RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the same cannot be provided. However, in the interest of justice, you should report the aggrieved matter to your immediate senior for seeking further redressal of the issue. Para 566 Air Force Regulation can also be referred. The same is available in Defense Service Regulation, which is broadly available on open source i.e, Official Page 8 of 14 website of Ministry of Defense and the same can be downloaded from the said website as per the requirement.
(b) Para 1 (b) & (d). As regards to this para, in Indian Air Force, subject matter is dealt in accordance with Section 26 of AF Act, 1950 read with para 621 & 622 of Regulations for Air Force, 1964, which is broadly available on open source i.e, Official website of Ministry of Defense and the same can be downloaded from the said website as per the requirement. However, in the interest of justice, you should seek punishment u/s 47 of the AF Act 1950 i.e III-treating a subordinate.
(c) Para 1 (c). No such information in the manner it has been sought is available with this Public Authority. However, you can approach your CO in writing by bringing up all the details of harassment/aggrivement and may seek redressal of his grievances.
(d) Para 1 (f). No such information in the manner it has been sought is available with this Public Authority. However, AFO 03 of 2023 is available to deal with the harassment in workplace mainly sexual harassment, which is similar to workplace harassment as available in the open source and can be accessed from internet.
(e) Para 1 (h) to (k). As per Para 621 (o) of Regulation of Air Force Period of Permissible Delay "It is of utmost importance that application for redress of grievances by airmen are dealt with expeditiously so as to reach the authority competent to redress the grievance not later than 4 days from its date of submission by the aggrieved person. No intermediate authority will hold up the application for more than 10 days. in the event of any longer delay a report indicating the reasons will be made to the next higher authority". As per Para 621 (p) of Regulation of Air Force Period of Permissible Delay "Any method other than those specified in these regulations for seeking a remedy of grievance by airman, is not possible".
(f) Para 1 (m). Information sought vide this para is vague in nature. Hence, the sought information cannot be provided. However, in the interest of justice, you can approach Armed Forces Tribunal u/s 2 of the AFT Act 2007."
17. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.04.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 13.05.2024, held as under.
"1. after having perused all the records and after hearing views of the nodal officer, I find that appropriate information has already been provisioned to the appellant by the CPIO vide RTI Cell letter No A/810027/RTI/OL-85315 dated 14 Mar 2024. 1, therefore, uphold the decision of the CPIO.Page 9 of 14
2. The appeal is therefore disposed of accordingly."
18. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
19. The Commission also noted that proof of having served a copy of his Second Appeal on the Respondent has not been uploaded by the Appellant while filing the same before the Commission. On a query, the Respondent confirms non-service.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Ms. Geeta Choudhary, Advocate and representative of the Appellant attended the hearing in person.
Respondent: Shri JM Sharma, CPIO, Shri IK Sahu, System Manager and Shri GS Tewatia, AAG, ADG(DV), attended the hearing in person.
20. The representative of the Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application. She added the initial reply of the CPIO and written submission dated 18.07.2025 of the CPIO are contradictory in nature.
21. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant in the instant RTI Application is seeking clarifications from the PIO and the same is beyond the ambit of information as defined under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Despite this, in order to allay the apprehension of the Appellant a detailed explanation regarding the rule position has been given to the Appellant vide written submission dated 18.07.2025.
22. A written submission has been received from Shri JM Sharma, CPIO, vide letter dated 18.07.2025, a copy of which has been sent to the Appellant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant record of the same is as under:
"7.Submission. It is submitted that the case has appropriately been transferred by this Cell to MCTE Mhow vide letter mentioned at Para 4 & 5 above and MCTE, Mhow has appropriately replied on the RTI application dated 20 Oct 2023 to the appellant vide their letter No PC-351/A Br/Complaints/Ciph/AK dated 10 Feb 2024 (Copy enclosed at Appendix E).
8. However, it is also submitted that obtaining Call Detail Record (CDR) is governed by Section 92 of CrPC & Sec 5(2) of Indian Telegraph Act 1885 Page 10 of 14 alongwith Rule 419A of Indian Telegraph Amendment Rules 2007. The procedure for obtaining the same as given in the law was correctly followed. The request was sent to Superintendent of Police Headquarters Indore (Rural) by the Presiding Officer detailed to conduct Court of Inquiry against the officer (Copy enclosed at Appendix F)."
23. A written submission has been received from Shri JM Sharma, CPIO, vide letter dated 18.07.2025, a copy of which has been sent to the Appellant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant record of the same is as under:
"6. Submission. It is submitted that the case has appropriately been disposed of by this Cell vide letters mentioned at Para 3 & 4 above. However, additional inputs are enumerated below for the attention of Hon'ble CIC with respect to this RTI application:-
6.1. Gazette Notification No 3530 dt 04 Sep 2018 accredited by Meity under Section 79A of IT Act 2000 is already available on Army Portal. 6.2. SoP on handling of Cyber Security Incidents requiring Cyber Forensic Investigation dt 13 Dec 2022 is already available on Army Portal."
24. A written submission has been received from Shri JM Sharma, CPIO, vide letter dated 18.07.2025, a copy of which has been sent to the Appellant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant record of the same is as under:
"2.Brief of the Case. The appellant Col Amanpreet Singh Gill had filed a RTI application seeking information regarding his redressal mechanism available to armed forces personnel against work place harassment.
3. Application under RTI. Appellant's initial RTI application dt 27 Feb 2024 seeking information regarding his redressal mechanism available to armed forces personnel against work place harassment. Case was disposed of under Section 2 (f) as info sought is vague, hypothetical, interrogatory and seeking opinions/clarifications vide this RTI Cell letter No. A/810027/RTI/OL_85315 dt 14 Mar 2024 (copy enclosed at Appendix A).
4.First Appeal. Being dissatisfied with disposal of the CPIO, appellant filed First Appeal dt 16 Apr 2024, which was received at this Cell on 08 May 2024. The same was heard by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 13 May 2024, wherein FAA observed that, appropriate information has already been provisioned to the appellant by the CPIO and upheld the decision of the CPIO vide Speaking Order No. B/87008/AG/PM/RTI-6848 dt 13 May 2024 (copy enclosed at Appendix B).Page 11 of 14
5. Second Appeal. Notice of Hearing for Second Appeal was received at this RTI Cell office on 07 Jul 2025 and the same has been listed for hearing at 1050 hrs on 23 Jul 2025.
6. Submission.
It is submitted that the case has appropriately been disposed of by this Cell vide letters mentioned at Para 3 & 4 above. However, additional inputs are enumerated below for the attention of Hon'ble CIC with respect to this RTI application:-
Ser No RTI Query Reply 6.1 It is a punishable offence in the Armed Forces of India for a senior serving armed forces officer to use derogatory remarks/language/ actions against his subordinates in front of the officers or subordinates? AA 63 & 47 6.2 Please specify the policy/ act under which use of derogatory remarks/language/ actions by a senior armed forces officer against his subordinates in front of officers or subordinates is punishable in the Armed forces of India and provide copy of the same.
6.3 Please specify which all channels of communication are available to aggrieved party/ armed forces personnel to report matters relating to ill-treatment of subordinates by senior serving officer of AA 27 and Para 364 of armed forces of India and provide a copy of Regulations for the such policy. Army 1987 6.4 Please specify various mechanisms available in the armed forces of India to seek redressal of ill-treatment of subordinate/ armed forces personnel by a senior armed forces officer.
6.5 Does workplace harassment considered as ill-treatment of subordinate by senior serving officer in the armed forces of India. 6.6 Please specify under which policy workplace harassment is considered as ill-treatment of subordinate by a senior serving officer in the armed forces of India and provide a copy of the same.
6.7 Is there specific time duration for addressing redressal of grievance of armed forces personnel or aggrieved party in armed forces Page 12 of 14 of India.
6.8 Please specify the various time duration in which the redressal is to be granted in the complaint of the aggrieved party/ armed Refer Para 364 of forces personnel by the senior reviewing Regulations for the officer of the armed forces of India and Army 1987 provide a copy of such policy.
6.9 Please specify any alternate method of seeking redressal in armed forces of India in case the grievance remains unaddressed/ unanswered within the specified timeframe by the senior reviewing officer and provide a copy of such policy.
6.10 Please specify all alternate methods of seeking redressal in case the grievance by armed forces personnel remains undressed/ unanswered within the specified timeframe by the senior reviewing officer in the armed forces of India and provide a copy of the policy of the same 6.11 Please specify the departmental/ panel actions in the armed forces of India for failure of reviewing officer to dispose-off a redressal in a time bound manner and provide a copy of the policy on the same 6.12 Are members of armed forces of India permitted to approach Armed Forces Tribunal for grievances relating to ill- As per AFT act for treatment of subordinate? which info is available 6.13 Please specify in which all on AFT website circumstances/conditions can a serving armed forces personnel approach the Armed Forces Tribunal for redressal of his grievance and provide the policy on the same.
"
Decision:
25. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant in the instant RTI Application is seeking clarifications from the CPIO and the same is beyond the ambit of information as defined under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. This has been clearly discussed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in its decision dated 03.04.2018, passed in Page 13 of 14 case of Dr. Celsa Pinto vs. The Goa State Information Commission (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) wherein it was held as under:
" 8. Xxx The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justifi- cation for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot be expected to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information..."
26. In view of the above, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 24.11.2023 and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO vide written submission dated 18.07.2025 cannot be considered contradictory. Therefore, the contention of the Appellant that replies are contradictory is not tenable. It is an admitted fact that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he is not expected to create information as per the desire of the Appellant. Hence, no intervention of the Commission is required in these cases.
The Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Page 14 of 14 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)