Law Beat: New Delhi: Sunday, July 19,
2026.
The Commission
held that the RTI applicant had not sought specific information within the
meaning of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and found no ground to interfere after
the PMO stated that Prime Minister Narendra Modi's personal YouTube channel is
not managed by the PMO or the Government of India.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has dismissed a second appeal filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking details of the annual expenditure incurred on maintaining and operating Prime Minister Narendra Modi's YouTube channel, after taking note of the Prime Minister's Office (PMO)'s stand that the PM Modi's personal YouTube channel is not managed by the PMO or the Government of India.
Chief Information Commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal passed the order while deciding a second appeal filed by Kunal Gupta.
The appellant filed an RTI application on June 27, 2024, seeking information on the annual expenditure incurred in maintaining and operating the Prime Minister's official YouTube channel. After receiving no response, he preferred a first appeal.
The First Appellate Authority (FAA) on August 22, 2024, directed the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the PMO to furnish a reply within 15 working days, clarifying that the request to initiate penalty proceedings against the CPIO was not maintainable before the appellate authority.
Alleging non-compliance with the FAA's directions, the appellant approached the CIC by way of a second appeal. During the hearing, the appellant remained absent.
Appearing on behalf of the PMO through video conference, the CPIO informed the Commission that a reply had been furnished to the RTI applicant on October 8, 2024, stating: "The Personal YouTube channel of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi is not managed by the PMO or GoI."
On being queried about the delay in responding to the RTI application, the CPIO expressed regret and stated that there was no intention to withhold information or obstruct the appellant's right to information.
According to the CPIO, additional time was required to gather the relevant inputs needed to reply to the application.
After considering the matter, the Commission observed that the RTI application did not seek a specific record or information within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
It noted that the application sought an answer to a conjecture-based query, without identifying any specific record or indicating the relevant time period for which the information was sought. The CIC therefore found that the CPIO had responded in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act.
The Commission further noted that there was no mala fide or wilful concealment of information on the part of the CPIO. Finding no scope for granting any relief or directing further action, it dismissed the appeal.
Case title: Kunal Gupta vs CPIO Prime Minister's Office
 |
CIC has
dismissed a plea seeking details of the annual expenditure incurred on
maintaining and operating Prime Minister Narendra Modi's YouTube channel. |
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has dismissed a second appeal filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking details of the annual expenditure incurred on maintaining and operating Prime Minister Narendra Modi's YouTube channel, after taking note of the Prime Minister's Office (PMO)'s stand that the PM Modi's personal YouTube channel is not managed by the PMO or the Government of India.
Chief Information Commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal passed the order while deciding a second appeal filed by Kunal Gupta.
The appellant filed an RTI application on June 27, 2024, seeking information on the annual expenditure incurred in maintaining and operating the Prime Minister's official YouTube channel. After receiving no response, he preferred a first appeal.
The First Appellate Authority (FAA) on August 22, 2024, directed the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the PMO to furnish a reply within 15 working days, clarifying that the request to initiate penalty proceedings against the CPIO was not maintainable before the appellate authority.
Alleging non-compliance with the FAA's directions, the appellant approached the CIC by way of a second appeal. During the hearing, the appellant remained absent.
Appearing on behalf of the PMO through video conference, the CPIO informed the Commission that a reply had been furnished to the RTI applicant on October 8, 2024, stating: "The Personal YouTube channel of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi is not managed by the PMO or GoI."
On being queried about the delay in responding to the RTI application, the CPIO expressed regret and stated that there was no intention to withhold information or obstruct the appellant's right to information.
According to the CPIO, additional time was required to gather the relevant inputs needed to reply to the application.
After considering the matter, the Commission observed that the RTI application did not seek a specific record or information within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
It noted that the application sought an answer to a conjecture-based query, without identifying any specific record or indicating the relevant time period for which the information was sought. The CIC therefore found that the CPIO had responded in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act.
The Commission further noted that there was no mala fide or wilful concealment of information on the part of the CPIO. Finding no scope for granting any relief or directing further action, it dismissed the appeal.
Case title: Kunal Gupta vs CPIO Prime Minister's Office
.JPG)
.JPG)
