2018 (5) TMI 1074 - Board - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Appeal received in the office of FAA Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India under the Right to Information Act, 2005 - whether 10 years of experience prescribed in said Regulation will include a member of any professional bodies mentioned in the said regulation, who is enrolled only as a member of professional body mentioned in the said regulations, for more than 10 years but neither having certificate of practice of that profession nor anywhere in employment (i.e. without any experience) . Held that - The information sought by the appellant are in the nature of seeking advice/opinion, therefore, it does not fall under the definition of the information under section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, all Rules and Regulations made thereunder are placed on the website- www.ibbi.gov.in /public domain accessible to all. Once the information is available in the public domain, it cannot be said to be held or under the control of the public authority and thus ceases to be an information accessible under the RTI Act.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against CPIO order regarding RTI request for information on experience criteria for Insolvency Professional registration.

Analysis:
The appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India pertained to a Right to Information (RTI) request made by Mr. Ankit Garg regarding the experience criteria for registration of Insolvency Professionals. The appellant sought clarification on whether a member of a professional body mentioned in the regulations, without a certificate of practice or employment experience, would fulfill the 10 years of experience requirement. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) had responded by referring to the relevant regulations available on the Board's website, stating that the eligibility criteria were clearly outlined there.

Upon review, the appellant contended that the specific definition of the ten years of experience was not provided in the regulations as mentioned by the CPIO. The FAA considered the appellant's arguments in light of legal precedents, including a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that public authorities are not obligated to provide advice or opinions but only existing material records. The FAA also referred to a Central Information Commission decision highlighting that RTI queries should focus on seeking specific information available with the public authority.

Furthermore, the FAA underscored that all rules and regulations under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, were publicly accessible on the Board's website, indicating that information in the public domain may not be subject to RTI requests. Citing another CIC decision, the FAA emphasized that public authorities are not required to create new records to address specific queries in RTI applications but can only provide existing records. Consequently, the FAA concluded that the information sought by the appellant, which appeared to be seeking advice or opinion, did not fall within the definition of information under the RTI Act.

Therefore, the FAA disposed of the appeal, highlighting that the public authority was not obligated to act as a consultant and that the appellant's queries were more aligned with seeking advice rather than specific information as defined by the RTI Act. The decision emphasized the limitations of RTI requests in seeking opinions or advice from public authorities, reinforcing the need for requests to focus on existing records or specific information available with the authority.