Seeking information regarding hypothetical situations under RTI
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in which he described an imaginary case and had requested the PIO to inform him if it was necessary to consult the CVC for the second stage advice. The Public Information Officer (PIO) explained that the Group ‘A’ Officers of the Central Government came under the jurisdiction of the CVC and its first and second stage advice was required. He also stated that in composite cases involving both Groups ‘A’ officers of the Central Government and others and those not coming under CVC’s jurisdiction were also referred to the Commission for its advice.
View of CIC
The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that what the appellant has sought did not fall within the meaning of information as defined in section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, 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; of the RTI Act. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that it is beyond the scope of the duty cast on the PIO.
Citation: Mr. Subrata Basu v. Central Vigilance Commission in File No. CIC/SM/A/2012/000882
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/919
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission