Taxscan: New Delhi: Wednesday, 1St October 2025.
The IBBI's First Appellate Authority upheld the decision of the CPIO who had refused to provide the requested information, stating that the queries were in the nature of seeking professional advice/opinion, which is beyond the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
The First Appellate
Authority of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has disposed
of an appeal challenging a response under the Right to Information Act (RTI
Act), ruling that seeking advice from the board regarding the proposal of
corporate debtor (CD) to withdraw insolvency process is beyond the ambit of
RTI.
Kuldeep Jain, the appellant, had sought information regarding a corporate debtor's proposal to withdraw the insolvency resolution process under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) has replied that queries of the Appellant are in the nature of seeking opinion/explanation, which are beyond the scope of information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Aggrieved with the reply, the Appellant has filed the present Appeal stating that the CPIO has wrongly denied the information sought.
The responses of the Respondent and the Appeals find that the matter can be decided based on the material available on record. In terms of section 2(f) of the RTI Act ‘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.”
It was mentioned that the Appellant’s “right to information’ flows from section 3 of the RTI Act and the said right is subject to the provisions of the Act. Section 2(j) of the RTI Act defines the “right to information” in term of information accessible under the Act which is held by or is under the control of a public authority. Thus, if the public authority holds any information in the form of data, statistics, abstracts, etc. an applicant can have access to the same under the RTI Act subject to exemptions under section 8.
In the impugned Appeal, the Appellant has sought advice from the Board pertaining to the proposal of the corporate debtor, Orior Developers & Infrastructure Private Limited, to withdraw the insolvency resolution process under Section 12A of the Code. Thus, the information sought is in the nature of seeking professional advice/opinion, which is beyond the ambit of information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
The CIC in the matter Dr. D.V. Rao Vs. Shri Yashwant Singh & Anr has observed that: “the RTI Act does not cast on the public authority any obligation to answer queries in which a petitioner attempts to elicit answers to his questions with prefixes, such as, ‘why’, ‘what’, ‘when’ and ‘whether’. The petitioner’s right extends only to seeking information as defined in section 2 (f) either by pinpointing the file, document, paper or record, etc., or by mentioning the type of information as may be available with the specified public authority.”
Further, quoted the ruling by Supreme Court of India, in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [2011 (8) SCC 497] inter alia, held that: “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…”
The IBBI's First Appellate Authority upheld the decision of the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), who had refused to provide the requested information, stating that the queries were in the nature of seeking professional advice/opinion, which is beyond the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
The IBBI's First Appellate Authority upheld the decision of the CPIO who had refused to provide the requested information, stating that the queries were in the nature of seeking professional advice/opinion, which is beyond the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Kuldeep Jain, the appellant, had sought information regarding a corporate debtor's proposal to withdraw the insolvency resolution process under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) has replied that queries of the Appellant are in the nature of seeking opinion/explanation, which are beyond the scope of information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Aggrieved with the reply, the Appellant has filed the present Appeal stating that the CPIO has wrongly denied the information sought.
The responses of the Respondent and the Appeals find that the matter can be decided based on the material available on record. In terms of section 2(f) of the RTI Act ‘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.”
It was mentioned that the Appellant’s “right to information’ flows from section 3 of the RTI Act and the said right is subject to the provisions of the Act. Section 2(j) of the RTI Act defines the “right to information” in term of information accessible under the Act which is held by or is under the control of a public authority. Thus, if the public authority holds any information in the form of data, statistics, abstracts, etc. an applicant can have access to the same under the RTI Act subject to exemptions under section 8.
In the impugned Appeal, the Appellant has sought advice from the Board pertaining to the proposal of the corporate debtor, Orior Developers & Infrastructure Private Limited, to withdraw the insolvency resolution process under Section 12A of the Code. Thus, the information sought is in the nature of seeking professional advice/opinion, which is beyond the ambit of information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
The CIC in the matter Dr. D.V. Rao Vs. Shri Yashwant Singh & Anr has observed that: “the RTI Act does not cast on the public authority any obligation to answer queries in which a petitioner attempts to elicit answers to his questions with prefixes, such as, ‘why’, ‘what’, ‘when’ and ‘whether’. The petitioner’s right extends only to seeking information as defined in section 2 (f) either by pinpointing the file, document, paper or record, etc., or by mentioning the type of information as may be available with the specified public authority.”
Further, quoted the ruling by Supreme Court of India, in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [2011 (8) SCC 497] inter alia, held that: “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…”
The IBBI's First Appellate Authority upheld the decision of the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), who had refused to provide the requested information, stating that the queries were in the nature of seeking professional advice/opinion, which is beyond the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
.JPG)
.JPG)
