Whether public authority is required to furnish unavailable information under RTI?

At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under Clauses (f) and (j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analyzed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. 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. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 

Decided On: 09.08.2011

Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.V. Raveendran and A.K. Patnaik, JJ.

Citation: (2011) 8 SCC 497

Print Page

Opinion versus fact in suit for defamation

The most misunderstood concept in defamation law is the distinction between fact and opinion and its relation to liability.  Most people (very smart ones included) mistakenly believe that only facts are actionable as defamation.  But in California opinions are actionable as well if they can ". . . reasonably be understood as declaring or implying actual facts capable of being proved true or false."

 This is the way it works:  a court will examine the totality of the circumstances starting with the alleged defamatory statement itself to determine whether the statement is factual or implies a fact that can be proven false.  If the answer is yes, the statement may be actionable assuming the other elements of a libel or slander claim are met.  If not, it’s over.

Print Page