corporate law
The recent appeal under the Right to Information (RTI) Act addresses the critical issue of information access as it relates to a claim made during a corporate insolvency process. The appellant, Krishna Chakrabarty, has challenged the response to his RTI application regarding the status of his claim against MKHS Realty LLP, which entered liquidation.
The interpretation of 'information' is central to this case. According to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, information includes a variety of materials but explicitly excludes opinions or advice. The appellant seeks details regarding the status of his claim, which, under the RTI Act's definition, does not qualify as 'information.' The response provided by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) aligns with the legal definitions set forth by the RTI Act.
Legal precedents indicate that public authorities are not mandated to furnish opinions or advice. The RTI Act provides access only to existing records. Appeals are restricted to the original RTI application, limiting the scope of inquiries to what was initially requested.
The appellant's appeal contests the response to his RTI application, which inquired about the status of a claim related to MKHS Realty LLP.
The CPIO clarified that the appellant's request sought an opinion, which is not considered 'information' under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
In the appeal, the appellant reiterated that his inquiry pertained directly to the corporate insolvency process, previously initiated by the IBBI, and sought a substantive response regarding the outcome of his claim.
Following a thorough review, it is determined that the appellant's request for information amounted to seeking explanations or advice rather than records or facts.
The authority reviewed the definition of 'information' and the stipulations of the RTI Act:
The appeal reflects dissatisfaction with the lack of response to the appellant's claims but does not conform to the RTI Act's framework.
The authority further noted that the requests in the appeal differed from those in the original application. Following precedents, it is not permissible for an appellant to expand their request in appeals.
Consequently, the original decision of the CPIO remains affirmed, and the appeal is hereby dismissed.
This case highlights the structured limitations imposed by the RTI Act on information access, reinforcing the distinction between factual information and subjective opinions or guidance.