The Balance between Grievance Redressal and Information Disclosure under RTI Act

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 may be referred to as a notable success in regard to transparency and accountability. It advances informed involvement in the democratic process by allowing individuals to seek information from public authorities. However notably, the RTI Act also imposes certain limitations on the kinds of information that may be sought. Whereas the Act promotes access to only existing information, it does not involve the interpretations or the redress of complaints. The term ‘information’ is defined under Section 2 (f) which is as follows

“(f) 'information’ means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, 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;”

Notably, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court at Goa in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto vs. Goa State Information Commission (W.P. No. 419 of 2007, decision dated 03.04.2008) wherein it was held as follows: 

"The definition of information cannot include within its fold answers to the question "why" which would be same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The public information authorities cannot expect 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."

A certain balance is crucial to prevent the public authorities from being flooded with seeking redressal of grievances rather than genuine information defeating the very purpose of the act. Therefore, we must be aware of these constraints that is to say that RTI is not a method of grievance redressal. 

In Yogesh Kumar vs. CPIO, M/o. Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department Of Personnel & Training the appellant sought information regarding the proposal (if any) to implement the MACP w.e.f 01.01.2006 instead of 01.09.2008 in compliance with a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In this regard, the Hon’ble Central Information Commission observed that the matter was not as much about seeking the information as it was about redressing the Appellant’s grievance. It was rightly pointed out by the CPIO, that the information sought in the RTI Application does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant was drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011] wherein it was held as under: 

“35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the 3 exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.” (Emphasis Supplied).

In Shri Sanjeev Kumar Vs. PIO/PCO (Cluster), Transport Dept. 5/9 Under Hill Road, Delhi the applicant filed an RTI application in regards to a complaint seeking information inter alia the officer responsible for keeping the complaint pending and action initiated against the said officer. The Hon’ble Central Information Commission noted that the RTI application stemmed from the grievance of the Appellant. It was held that the Commission is not a grievance redressal forum the Appellant is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for resolution of his grievances which are essentially premised over disputed questions of fact. Sandip Nana Patil Vs. CPIO, DoPT, New Delhi where in The Appellant sought to know if there were any rules and regulations for grievance redressal mechanism on PG Portal; if so, details and action taken thereon; and if there is any proposal for compulsory VRS or termination of service, etc. The Commission observed that the information sought in the RTI Application is not as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the Appellant has sought for clarification and interpretation of the CPIO based on vague queries. CPIO has provided an appropriate reply leaving no further scope of intervention at this stage.

In M Jameel Basha Vs. CPIO, DoPT the appellant sought certain ‘vague’ clarifications in its RTI application. The Hon’ble Commission held that no information has been sought as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The omission highlighted under RTI Act, CPIO is not supposed to create information or interpret/ clarify/ deduct information in respect of queries/clarifications. Similarly, redressal of grievance, non-compliance with rules, contesting the actions of respondent public authority, and suggesting correction in government policies are outside the purview of the RTI Act.

Upon the proper perusal of certain judicial pronouncements in this regard, what may be inferred is that its fundamental purpose is to enable access to genuine information rather than function as a forum for redressing personal grievances. The cases reviewed underline constraints, emphasizing that despite the fact that individuals have the right to know guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21, they must also be bound by the boundaries that the legislation provides. This balance is important to maintain the integrity of the provision which is to provide information to the citizens rather than to peruse complaints. Ultimately, developing a clear awareness of these restrictions would strengthen the RTI framework, enabling it to act as a formidable weapon for democratic involvement and governance.