RTI Queries Seeking Confirmation of Right Person for CIRP Payments Not Covered u/s 2(f): IBBI [Read Notification]
The IBBI clarifies that RTI cannot be used to seek confirmations or clarifications on payment handling during ongoing CIRP proceedings.
The First Appellate Authority of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has held that queries seeking confirmation of the “right person” to receive payments during a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), along with reasons for non-response, do not constitute “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, the RTI appeal was dismissed.
The Appellant Virendra Kumar, filed an RTI application dated 04 December 2025 before the IBBI seeking confirmation as to whether Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma or Mr. Hemanshu Lalitbhai Kapadia was the correct person to whom money ought to have been paid in the CIRP of Redkenko Health Tech Private Limited. Thereafter, the Appellant sought the reasons for their alleged non-response despite submission of claim documents and sought information on the details of the correct person and documents required for submission.
By an order dated 30 December 2025 the CPIO, IBBI, rejected the request on the ground that the questions had been framed in a manner that required the response to be opinion based and explanatory, which was not included in the definition of “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The appellant thereupon preferred a first appeal before the Appellate Authority.
The appellant had contended that the CPIO had erred in denying the information. He had contended that the confirmation of the appropriate official to receive CIRP amounts would be important to safeguard his interest. The information is of the type that would be available with the IBBI as they are the statutory authority for the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The Respondent contended that the RTI Act only allows access to the existing information and records that are under the control of a public authority and that the RTI Act does not mandate the public authority to deliver any opinion, clarification or to offer any guidance to the applicant on the procedures in CIRP.
The Appellate Authority considered the applicability of Sections 2(f), 2(j), and 3 of the RTI Act and found that “the questions raised by the appellant in his applications were seeking only clarification, confirmation, and reasons, which cannot be regarded as seeking ‘information’.” It again emphasized that it was not possible to compel a public authority to create or infer information which did not exist in its records.
The Authority further observed that the information related to CIRP such as the commencement of CIRP, IRP/RP information, announcements made to the public, etc., are already available with the IBBI website and the NCLT portal i.e., the e-filing platform. Since the information is available with the public domain, the CPIO is not required to furnish the information in the specified manner as requested by the appellant.
As no infirmity was found in the CPIO’s reply, the appeal was disposed of.
