Can the files be destroyed when the same have been sought under the RTI Act?

Background

The appellant wanted to know whether the complete file/files/documents pertaining to papers of Right to Information (RTI) case which is in process can be weeded out or not by any Government servant/ Government office. He also sought for copy of the rules in this regard. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that appellant is seeking an advice which did not fall under the meaning of information under 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 RTI Act and also noted that appellant may consult the RTI Act and RTI Rules, which are already in public domain and the same are also available in the website of Central Information Commission (CIC). The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the PIO’s order and informed that the Central Information Commission- is not the custodian of information sought. He further held that such issues can only be adjudicated by the Commission and the PIO cannot provide any further information in this regard.

View of CIC

The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal holding that the appellant has not sought any information as defined under 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; . The Commission observed that the appellant has not sought anything which is a matter of records but is seeking the opinion of the PIO.

Comments

The view of the CIC has varied in many cases right from taking a technical view of a question to a pro-active stand in favour of disclosure. The answer to the query of the applicant lies in the rules which prescribe the maintenance of records which could have been referred to the applicant.

Citation: Mr. N. K. Sinha v. Central Information Commission in File No: CIC/AD/A/2012/001179