Times of India: National: Sunday, 3rd August
2025.
The IBBI held that RTI Act cannot be used to seek legal interpretations
The Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has dismissed two RTI appeals filed by
appellant, who had sought detailed clarifications on provisions of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) relating to ongoing insolvency
proceedings.
Jitendar Sood had approached the IBBI with two separate appeals, both arising from responses received from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the IBBI.
The IBBI held that RTI Act cannot be used to seek legal interpretations
In the first appeal, Sood raised a series of queries related to a real estate project undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). His questions delved into nuanced issues like the legal classification and financial treatment of delivered versus undelivered towers in the CIRP framework, the allocation of funds by the Resolution Professional (RP), and the legality of collecting transfer charges for such flats.
In the second appeal, he raised the question of homebuyers whose possession had been given without registration. He argued that despite filing full-value claims, these buyers were given zero voting rights in the Committee of Creditors (CoC). Here again, he sought references to the specific clauses under the IBC that allowed such treatment and any provisions for rectification or action against the RP.
In both cases, the CPIO had earlier responded that the queries did not pertain to information held by the public authority and were instead requests for legal interpretation or opinion, something outside the mandate of the RTI Act.
Upholding this, the FAA cited Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which defines “information” as existing material like records, documents, memos, e-mails, contracts, reports, etc., that are held by a public authority. It was held that this definition excludes the requirement to generate information or offer explanations or interpretations that are not already documented.
The order relied heavily on a landmark 2011 Supreme Court judgment in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, which clarified that public authorities are not required to provide “advice” or “opinion” unless such material is already held in the records.
The First Appellate Authority (FAA) and Executive Director of IBBI, Mr. Kulwant Singh, disposed of the two appeals in this matter noting that the CPIO must provide only such information as ‘held’ by the public authority and that he is under no obligation to dispose information or furnish his opinion in response to the queries as sought by the Appellant.
(Cleck for Order)
The IBBI held that RTI Act cannot be used to seek legal interpretations
Jitendar Sood had approached the IBBI with two separate appeals, both arising from responses received from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the IBBI.
The IBBI held that RTI Act cannot be used to seek legal interpretations
In the first appeal, Sood raised a series of queries related to a real estate project undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). His questions delved into nuanced issues like the legal classification and financial treatment of delivered versus undelivered towers in the CIRP framework, the allocation of funds by the Resolution Professional (RP), and the legality of collecting transfer charges for such flats.
In the second appeal, he raised the question of homebuyers whose possession had been given without registration. He argued that despite filing full-value claims, these buyers were given zero voting rights in the Committee of Creditors (CoC). Here again, he sought references to the specific clauses under the IBC that allowed such treatment and any provisions for rectification or action against the RP.
In both cases, the CPIO had earlier responded that the queries did not pertain to information held by the public authority and were instead requests for legal interpretation or opinion, something outside the mandate of the RTI Act.
Upholding this, the FAA cited Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which defines “information” as existing material like records, documents, memos, e-mails, contracts, reports, etc., that are held by a public authority. It was held that this definition excludes the requirement to generate information or offer explanations or interpretations that are not already documented.
The order relied heavily on a landmark 2011 Supreme Court judgment in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, which clarified that public authorities are not required to provide “advice” or “opinion” unless such material is already held in the records.
The First Appellate Authority (FAA) and Executive Director of IBBI, Mr. Kulwant Singh, disposed of the two appeals in this matter noting that the CPIO must provide only such information as ‘held’ by the public authority and that he is under no obligation to dispose information or furnish his opinion in response to the queries as sought by the Appellant.
(Cleck for Order)
.JPG)
.JPG)
