corporate law
In a recent appeal led by Jitender Kumar Jain, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) rejected the request for detailed information regarding investigations it conducted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The appellant sought insight into cases of IBBI found violations, alongside instances where advisories were issued without taking disciplinary actions. Although some data was provided, IBBI explained that gathering the specifics requested would necessitate considerable resources, as it does not store records in the desired format. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) supported IBBI’s position, emphasizing that the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) does not require public authorities to compile information in a manner that could excessively stress their resources. Citing legal precedents, including a Supreme Court ruling, the FAA reinforced that the RTI Act should not be exploited to overload authorities with impractical requests. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, noting that it did not serve a broader public interest and would burden IBBI’s resources.
The appellant filed an appeal on September 5, 2024, contesting the IBBI's communication received on the same date, relating to RTI application ISBBI/R/E/24/00160.
The queries raised in the RTI application and the consequent responses from the Respondent are outlined below:
Discontented with the IBBI's response, the appellant argued against being "Refused access to Information Requested."
Upon examining the appeal and the Respondent’s reply, it was concluded that the matter may be resolved based on the existing documentation. According to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 'information' encompasses any material including records, documents, emails, opinions, orders, or reports. It should be noted that the appellant's right to information, as granted by Section 3, is subject to the provisions and exemptions outlined in the Act. Section 2(j) stipulates that the right to access information pertains to what is held or controlled by a public authority.
Regarding Point 1, the Respondent has provided the accessible information. The appeal does not specify how the appellant is disadvantaged by this response.
For Points 2 and 3, the appellant's request necessitates a collation of investigation cases under specific categories. Importantly, all disciplinary orders are accessible on the IBBI website. The requested information would demand extensive data compilation and analysis, which falls outside the purview of RTI's intention to compel public authorities.
Such requests undermine the RTI Act’s intent and could disrupt the regular operations of the Respondent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in its verdict on Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (dated August 9, 2011), remarked:
The claim made by the appellant could lead to an unreasonable diversion of resources, contrary to Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, which allows for disclosing information in a sought format unless it would place disproportionate demands on public authorities.
Furthermore, no significant public interest is evident to necessitate the collation and detailed compilation of the information as requested. Such an action would undermine the practical framework of the RTI Act, leading to undue resource diversion from IBBI. The Hon’ble CIC, in the case of Shri Praveen Agarwal Vs. SEBI (Order dated October 1, 2008), stated that it is inappropriate for appellants to impose detailed queries on public authorities, particularly when such requests require them to sift through vast quantities of information. Section 7(9) prevents this type of disclosure.
Based on the established legal precedents, there is no valid reason to amend the Respondent's response; thus, the appeal stands dismissed.
This case highlights the balance necessary between the right to information and the practical considerations of public authorities. The ruling emphasizes that while transparency is essential, the demands placed on public bodies must remain reasonable to ensure efficient governance.