'Information' (s. 2(f)) and 'record' (s. 2(i)) — Right to Information (RTI) Notes

‘Information’ (s. 2(f)) and ‘record’ (s. 2(i))

A citizen once asked a department why it had not filled a librarian’s post for ten years. The PIO had every file on the vacancy — but no document that answered “why”. The Commission’s answer became a rule you will use again and again: RTI gives you access to information that exists, not to answers, opinions or explanations the officer would have to create for you.

What can be asked for — the widest possible definition

Start with the good news for the citizen: “information” is defined extremely broadly. It is any material in any form. If a public authority holds it, you can, in principle, ask for it.

Section 2(f) lists the forms — records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, and data held in electronic form. It even reaches information about a private body that a public authority can access under some other law. So a citizen may ask for a physical sample of road tar, or a model, not just paper.

Now the crucial limit, which is where the marks and the problems live: the Act gives access to existing information; it does not require a PIO to create information, give reasons, offer opinions, or answer questions. A question phrased as “why did you…?” or “what steps will you take?” asks for an explanation, not for a record. If a record recording the reasons exists, you get the record; if no such record exists, the PIO cannot be compelled to manufacture one.

A. ‘Information’ — s. 2(f)

Material in any form held by, or under the control of, a public authority — including material relating to a private body accessible to the authority under another law.

B. ‘Record’ — s. 2(i)

A subset of “information”. It includes any document, manuscript and file; any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document; any reproduction of images in such microfilm; and any material produced by a computer or other device. Think “the physical or electronic thing the information sits in”.

Section 2(f), RTI Act, 2005: “‘information’ means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.”

Section 2(i), RTI Act, 2005: “‘record’ includes — (a) any document, manuscript and file; (b) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document; (c) any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm…; and (d) any other material produced by a computer or any other device.”

In Simple Terms: “Information” is anything a public authority holds, in any form (even a physical sample). “Record” is the container it sits in — files, microfilm, computer data. But you can only get what already exists; you cannot demand that an officer write you an explanation.

⚠️ DON’T CONFUSE — asking for a record vs asking for an answer

“Give me the file/note recording the reasons for the delay” asks for existing information — allowed. “Tell me why you delayed / give me fuller reasons” asks the PIO to generate an explanation — not “information” under s. 2(f), so it can be refused. The decoy in these problems is that the request is dressed up as information. Test it: is there a document that already answers this, or must the officer compose an answer?

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the “why was the post vacant?” problem

Facts. X asks the PIO why a librarian’s post was vacant for ten years. The department answers; X then asks for “more detailed measures initiated”.

Rule. s. 2(f): a PIO supplies existing records, not fresh reasons, opinions or explanations he must generate.

Apply. Decoy: the request is worded as a demand for information. But “why” and “more detailed measures” seek an explanation the officer must compose. X is entitled to any existing file, note-sheet or order on the vacancy; he is not entitled to have the PIO write a fresh justification.

Conclusion. The PIO must disclose the existing records on the post; he need not manufacture reasons. Partly allowed, on that footing.

flowchart TD
    A["A citizen's request"]
    A --> B{"Does the material<br/>already exist as a record?"}
    B -->|"Yes"| C["'Information' u/s 2(f)<br/>— must be supplied (subject to s. 8/9)"]
    B -->|"No — asks for reasons/opinion"| D["Not 'information'<br/>— PIO need not create it"]
    classDef box fill:#e8f0fe,stroke:#333,color:#111;
    class A,C,D box;
    classDef q fill:#FFF3CD,stroke:#8a6d00,color:#111;
    class B q;

Case Laws

Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) — an evaluated answer-script is “information” and a “record”; access does not extend to a PIO inventing answers or providing advice/opinions he does not hold.
Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer (2010) — a citizen cannot ask a PIO for the reasons behind a judge’s or officer’s decision; s. 2(f) covers material held, not explanations to be furnished.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Right to Information (RTI) topics