IBBI Rejects RTI Appeal on DHFL Insolvency Payments: Clarifies RTI Is Not a Grievance Redressal Mechanism [Read Notification]

The appeal, filed by Mr. Karthikeyan on May 2, 2025, came from his dissatisfaction with the response of the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of IBBI, who had previously denied his request citing the nature of the queries as falling outside the ambit of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA), issued a detailed order dated June 13, 2025, upholding the CPIO’s decision and providing a clear explanation of what constitutes "information" under the RTI framework.

Cash Transactions Can Lead to Fines! Are you at risk? Click here

The Appellant’s application stemmed from personal frustration shared by many DHFL FD holders, whose investments were caught up in the company’s insolvency process. DHFL was admitted into insolvency proceedings in 2019 and was later acquired by Piramal Group as part of a resolution plan approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). However, the approved resolution plan returned only 23% of the principal amount to the FD holders, and many have been left uncertain about the remaining 77%.

In his RTI application, Mr. Karthikeyan asked a series of eight questions, many of which reflected the real-life anguish of investors. He sought information on when the remaining FD amount would be returned, why Piramal had not made further payouts, and whether any interest would be paid on the balance. He also questioned what actions had been taken by government authorities to protect small investors, and whether the delay amounted to a criminal offence given the severe financial distress it had caused to depositors over the last six years.

The FAA, after reviewing the application, responses, and applicable law, observed that while Mr. Karthikeyan’s concerns were genuine and sympathetic, the relief he sought was beyond the mandate of the RTI Act. The order pointed out that under Section 2(f) of the Act, “information” refers to material such as documents, records, circulars, contracts, or reports held by a public authority. The Act does not require a public authority to create information, provide explanations, or offer interpretations of policy.

Cash Transactions Can Lead to Fines! Are you at risk? Click here

The FAA, Kulwant Singh further stated that many of the queries, particularly those framed with prefixes like “why” and “when,” were in the nature of seeking opinions or redressal of grievances, which the RTI Act explicitly does not cover. Relying on the Central Information Commission’s ruling in Dr. D.V. Rao v. Shri Yashwant Singh & Anr., the FAA reiterated that the right to information cannot be extended to answering hypotheticals or eliciting justifications.

It was also held that the RTI Act is not a forum to demand policy corrections or to compel action from authorities, nor is it a substitute for judicial or quasi-judicial redress. The order noted that the CPIO is not required to interpret rules, offer clarifications, or respond to complaints disguised as queries.

As a result, the FAA dismissed the appeal, upholding the original CPIO response and asserting that while public authorities are duty-bound to share information they hold, they are under no legal obligation to resolve personal grievances through RTI.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates