The Indian Express: Article: Sunday, 10 May 2026.
Underscoring that the RTI
proceedings initiated on behalf of the minor must be supported by authorisation
or proof of guardianship, the Central Information Commission (CIC) dismissed
five complaints filed in the name of a four-year-old child for lacking locus
standi; the RTI applications sought information related to animal fitness
certificate, transportation permit for animals, expenditure and functioning of
the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI)
Central Information Commission heard the five clubbed RTI complaints filed against the Animal Welfare Board of India concerning similar subject matter and common parties, and noted that the RTI Act, 2005, gives the right to seek information to every ‘citizen’ of India, and does not bar minors from seeking information, “but it must be supported by authorisation or proof of guardianship.”
“The Commission is of the view that the present complaints are not maintainable on the ground of lack of locus standi of the complainant and absence of proof of valid representation of the minor applicant,” the May 4 order noted.
‘Five complaints’
Five RTI applications were filed in the name of a four-year-old minor girl before the Commission against the AWBI, seeking information on various animal-related issues.
The information sought in the aforementioned RTI included the animal fitness certificate, transportation permit for animals, expenditure and functioning of the AWBI, action status taken against the abuse of animals, and a complete report on the project with recommendations for the rehabilitation of circus animals.
Additionally, it also questioned various issues related to animals, such as the treatment of yaks and camels, and a report on the implementation of animal welfare schemes and related funds.
Queries raised are non-specific: AWBI
The Commission noted that the complainant neither submitted any proof of guardianship nor any authorisation from the minor’s natural guardians to act on the minor applicant’s behalf, and he failed to produce any of these documents even during the hearing.
The commission opined that, in the absence of any proof on record, guardianship or authorisation could not be presumed when the RTI applicant was a minor lacking the capacity to independently pursue proceedings without proper representation.
Accordingly, the commission held that the present complaints were not maintainable on the ground of lack of locus standi of the complainant, and lack of proof to establish guardianship and authorisation of the minor applicant.
RTI by minors is permitted
under the RTI Act, but valid guardianship or authorisation is necessary to
pursue proceedings.
 |
Five RTI applications were
filed in the name of a four-year-old minor girl against the Animal Welfare
Board of India (AWBI) before the Commission. (Image is generated using AI) |
Central Information Commission heard the five clubbed RTI complaints filed against the Animal Welfare Board of India concerning similar subject matter and common parties, and noted that the RTI Act, 2005, gives the right to seek information to every ‘citizen’ of India, and does not bar minors from seeking information, “but it must be supported by authorisation or proof of guardianship.”
“The Commission is of the view that the present complaints are not maintainable on the ground of lack of locus standi of the complainant and absence of proof of valid representation of the minor applicant,” the May 4 order noted.
 |
The Central Information
Commission heard a matter over five RTI complaints filed in the name of a
four-year-old girl. |
Five RTI applications were filed in the name of a four-year-old minor girl before the Commission against the AWBI, seeking information on various animal-related issues.
The information sought in the aforementioned RTI included the animal fitness certificate, transportation permit for animals, expenditure and functioning of the AWBI, action status taken against the abuse of animals, and a complete report on the project with recommendations for the rehabilitation of circus animals.
Additionally, it also questioned various issues related to animals, such as the treatment of yaks and camels, and a report on the implementation of animal welfare schemes and related funds.
Queries raised are non-specific: AWBI
- Secretary Maheshbhai and Assistant Secretary Prachi Jain, representing AWBI, submitted that the complainant had filed the complaints as the guardian of the four-year-old minor RTI applicant, but had failed to furnish any proof of guardianship.
- It was contended that in most of the matters, the queries raised by the appellant are non-specific and are like seeking clarification rather than “information” as defined under the RTI Act, 2005.
- They submitted that the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) was only obligated to provide such information available on record and was not expected to create, compile, or generate information that was not maintained.
- After perusal of the records, the commission found that the five RTI applications were filed in the name of a four-year-old minor girl by her grandfather, who was actually pursuing the complaints in her name.
- The commission noted that although the RTI Act, 2005, does not bar minors from seeking information, proceedings initiated by a person on behalf of a minor must be supported by authorisation or proof of guardianship due to the issue of legal capacity and representation.
- The Commission observed that in such cases, the person acting on behalf of the minor should clearly establish their status as a lawful guardian or authority from the minor’s natural guardians to represent and pursue legal proceedings on the minor’s behalf.
The Commission noted that the complainant neither submitted any proof of guardianship nor any authorisation from the minor’s natural guardians to act on the minor applicant’s behalf, and he failed to produce any of these documents even during the hearing.
The commission opined that, in the absence of any proof on record, guardianship or authorisation could not be presumed when the RTI applicant was a minor lacking the capacity to independently pursue proceedings without proper representation.
Accordingly, the commission held that the present complaints were not maintainable on the ground of lack of locus standi of the complainant, and lack of proof to establish guardianship and authorisation of the minor applicant.
.JPG)
.JPG)
