RTI Act: No Obligation on a Public Authority to Procure Information from a Private Body Merely Because It Can Access It Under Another Law
1) Introduction
This group of nine writ petitions before the Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction) arose from a common issue under the
Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”): whether a public authority is obliged, upon receiving an RTI request, to
collect/obtain information from a private body and disclose it to the applicant.
The petitions were filed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) (five petitions) and the
Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. (BSE) (four petitions), challenging orders of the Central Information Commission (CIC).
The CIC had directed SEBI to obtain certain information from BSE (a third party) and furnish it to RTI applicants.
Writ Petition No. 1710 of 2009 was treated as the lead matter because it challenged the CIC’s core order dated 25.05.2009
(in Shri Bhoj Raj Sahu vs SEBI), which formed the basis for similar directions in the other matters.
The RTI applicants, though served, did not appear before the High Court.
2) Summary of the Judgment
The Bombay High Court (Manish Pitale & Shreeram V. Shirsat, JJ.) allowed all writ petitions and
quashed and set aside the impugned CIC orders.
The Court held that the RTI Act obliges a public authority to disclose information that is
held by it or under its control at the time of the request (subject to exemptions),
but it does not impose an obligation to collect, collate, or procure information from third parties
(such as BSE) merely because the authority, in some regulatory capacity, may be able to access such information under another law.
3) Analysis
3.1 Precedents Cited
The High Court treated this decision as the key authority, particularly paragraph 63, which clarifies foundational limits of the RTI Act:
the Act provides access to “information that is available and existing” and does not cast an obligation on public authorities to
collect or collate non-available information to answer an RTI application.
The Bombay High Court applied this principle directly to SEBI: even if SEBI is a regulator with statutory powers to seek information
from market entities, RTI does not convert those powers into an RTI-driven duty to obtain and supply information to applicants.
The Constitution Bench judgment was decisive for the High Court because it:
(i) interprets the last portion of Section 2(f) (information relating to private bodies which can be accessed by a public authority under other law),
and (ii) expressly concurs with paragraph 63 of CBSE and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others.
Critically, the Constitution Bench distinguishes between:
removing restrictions on a citizen’s access to information already accessible/held by the public authority (by virtue of Section 22),
and expanding the public authority’s own access rights against private bodies. Section 22 is “a key” for citizens’ access,
not a tool enabling a public authority to override conditions/restrictions that limit the authority’s own ability to access private-body information.
Therefore, private bodies retain protections available under general law.
(c) Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) v. Akshay Kumar Malhotra, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 10
The Delhi High Court decision was cited as a consistent application of the Supreme Court’s position:
a public authority must disclose only what it possesses or controls and is not required to collect/compile/generate information
that is not part of its records or statutory functions for RTI purposes.
3.2 Legal Reasoning
The High Court’s reasoning is primarily statutory-interpretive, anchored in the structure of the RTI Act:
-
Section 2(f) (“information”) is broad, but its breadth is not limitless. The phrase “information relating to any private body which can be accessed”
cannot be read as creating a universal procurement duty for public authorities whenever they have any regulatory power.
-
Section 2(j) (“right to information”) expressly confines the right to information “held by or under the control of any public authority.”
The Court read this as the controlling limitation: RTI is fundamentally a right to access existing information within the public authority’s domain.
-
Section 8 (exemptions) reinforces that the statute is designed to balance transparency with competing public interests,
including efficient government functioning and protection of sensitive/confidential information—echoing the balancing approach highlighted in CBSE and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others.
-
Section 11 (third party information) operates where the public authority “intends to disclose” information that “relates to” or was “supplied by” a third party
and is treated as confidential. This mechanism presupposes the authority already has the information and is deciding disclosure—not that it must first obtain it.
-
The CIC’s approach—treating “can be accessed under any other law” as sufficient to compel SEBI to obtain information from BSE for RTI disclosure—
was held to be contrary (“in the teeth of”) the Supreme Court’s clarified position, particularly in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India (CPIO) v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal.
The Court also noted (as a practical indicator of settled law) that the CIC itself, in later orders after the Supreme Court’s clarification,
stopped issuing such directions requiring SEBI to obtain information from third parties.
3.3 Impact
This judgment’s immediate and broader implications are significant for RTI administration involving regulators and market institutions:
-
Limits “regulatory power” as an RTI lever: The decision draws a clear boundary between a regulator’s statutory investigatory/oversight powers
and RTI obligations. RTI cannot be used to compel a regulator to exercise coercive/statutory powers to fetch information for applicants.
-
Reduces systemic burden on public authorities: It prevents RTI from becoming a vehicle to outsource discovery-like collection obligations
onto regulators and other public bodies, which could otherwise divert scarce administrative resources.
-
Protects private bodies from indirect RTI compulsion: Private entities (like BSE) are not made de facto RTI-subject through the backdoor of
“accessibility” via regulators, preserving the “same protection” under other laws recognized in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India (CPIO) v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal.
-
Guidance for CIC/PIOs: The ruling reinforces that RTI adjudication must focus on whether information is “held” or “under the control” of the public authority,
rather than treating “ability to access under other law” as an automatic duty to procure.
4) Complex Concepts Simplified
-
“Held by” vs “under the control of”:
“Held by” means the authority already possesses/retains the record.
“Under control” means the authority has dominion or a lawful right to obtain access—yet the Supreme Court clarifies that where such access is
prohibited or conditional under other law, RTI does not erase those limits for the authority itself.
-
Section 2(f) and “private body information”:
RTI can cover information about a private body if it is accessible to the public authority under another law,
but this does not automatically mean the authority must go out, collect it, and then disclose it on demand.
-
Section 22 (overriding effect):
Section 22 overrides inconsistent laws that restrict a citizen’s access to information that the public authority already can access/holds.
It does not expand the public authority’s own access rights against private bodies or remove conditions imposed on the authority by other statutes.
-
“Third party information” under Section 11:
This is a procedural safeguard when the authority is considering disclosing third-party-related confidential information already in its possession.
It is not a mechanism to compel third-party collection.
5) Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s decision establishes and reaffirms a clear RTI rule for regulators and other public authorities:
RTI is a disclosure regime for existing information held by (or under the control of) a public authority—not a mandate to procure information from private bodies.
By quashing the CIC’s directions to SEBI to obtain information from BSE, the Court aligned CIC practice with the Supreme Court’s authoritative interpretation in
Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others and the Constitution Bench ruling in
Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India (CPIO) v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal.
The judgment thus strengthens doctrinal clarity, protects administrative efficiency, and preserves statutory boundaries between transparency obligations and regulatory powers.