It's quite common to see Right to Information (RTI) applications being filed to obtain certain information, only to receive the standard response that the file has gone missing. Consider a case where a citizen files an RTI application seeking a copy of the sanctioned plans of a cooperative society, records of which should ideally be in the custody of the Corporation. Backdrop of the application: society opted for redevelopment, the applicant being a minority member with a commercial unit has been deprived of her right to use. She questions the authenticity of the original sanction plans dating back to 1960, which should logically be with either the Corporation or the society. Weeks later, the reply arrives: “File not traceable.” Every subsequent response on applications and appeals echoes the same line. No explanation, no assurance of recovery, just another document lost to the government's black hole of “missing files.”
Whether it is a land allotment dispute, a government contract, or disciplinary proceedings against an official, “File not traceable” often surfaces as the state's explanation for non-disclosure. The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) clearly recognises a citizen's right to access records, documents, and files under Section 2(j) while Section 4 imposes a duty on public officials to proactively manage such records. Additionally, we have the Public Records Act, 1993 which mandates the public offices to maintain, preserve, and protect the government records. It expressly prohibits the destruction or disposal of any public record except in the manner prescribed under the Act, and prescribes punishment of imprisonment up to five years, a fine of ₹10,000, or both, for unlawful destruction or permanent misplacement. In light of these provisions, a claim that files are “missing” amounts to a clear breach of the statutory duty imposed on the concerned authority.
Courts and Central Information Commission (CIC) on Upholding Transparency
Multiple rulings of the courts and the Central Information Commission (CIC) go on to state that the excuse of “File not traceable” does not find a mention in the exemptions as mentioned under Section 8 of the Act. Therefore, RTI Queries cannot be dismissed on this ground. Unless proved that record was destroyed as per the prescribed rules of destruction/ retention policy, it is presumed that record continues to be held by public authority.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Union Of India Vs. Vishwas Bhamburkar[1] addressed the plea of the respondent authority that the record in question was not traceable, and observed that “since the Commission has the power to direct disclosure of information provided, it is not exempted from such disclosure, it would also have the jurisdiction to direct an inquiry into the matter wherever it is claimed by the PIO/CPIO that the information sought by the applicant is not traceable/readily traceable/currently traceable”. Addressing the issue of involving police authorities by lodging an FIR, the Central Information Commission (CIC) in Om Prakash v Land & Building Department, GNCTD[2], held that lodging of FIR would amount to a futile remedy, as their role would come into picture only if they were to be stolen. It was further stated that it is the duty of the PIO to make necessary efforts to trace the file and inform the same to the appellant in the form of an affidavit.
In Balendra Kumar Vs PIO, M/o Labour & Employment, the CIC held that a plea of missing file itself is the proof of denial of right to information of the appellant.[3] Further, in Shri Mahabir Singh Pahal Vs. PIO/Dy. Chief General Manager (Tr.) DTC, Scindia House, New Delhi[4], the CIC directed the DTC to obtain the information sought or file a duly sworn affidavit explaining the factual position regarding the missing/untraceable records along with the action taken to restore them, and also stated that non-compliance of the stipulated timeline shall attract penal action against the concerned PIO.
A review of the decisions of CIC reveals that the defence of “file not traceable” is usually invoked in cases relating to allotments, acquisitions, records of promotions, appointments, or disciplinary proceedings among others. This recurring excuse in such contexts suggests more of a deliberate concealment of necessary information rather than an 'accidental' misplacement. But at the same time, it cannot go unnoticed that the CIC in V.R. Sharma Vs Director (E) & CPIO, Ministry of Defence[5] stated that it would be fair to assume that the information as requested by the complainant is “untraceable” rather than “non-existent” thereby giving some validation, so to say to the acts of intentional concealment of records.
The judiciary has repeatedly underscored the responsibility of public authorities and information officers to uphold the spirit of transparency envisioned under the RTI Act. In Mujibur Rehman v. Central Information Commission[6], the Delhi High court had held that information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for and are not to be driven away through filibustering tactics and it is to ensure a culture of information disclosure that penalty provisions have been provided in the RTI Act. Even in Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta (Erstwhile CPIO) Union Bank of India and Others v. Central Information Commission and Another[7], the Delhi High Court emphasised on the solemn responsibility of the CPIOs looking into queries raised by the Applicants and fulfilling them while furnishing the said required information, in a fair, non-arbitrary and truthful manner, thereby maintaining their stance on penal action against them. A similar direction was given in D.P. Majhi Vs. National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi[8] where the CPIO was directed to reconstruct the file in case it was not traceable.
A Way Forward: Restoring Trust Through Digitisation and Accountability
In the 'Digital Personal Data Protection Act' era, it has become imperative that all public records be fully digitised. With the judiciary gradually embracing technology, be it through e-filing, or introduction of e-courts for advocates and litigants alike, complete digitisation of public information seems like a logical first step towards transparent and efficient governance. The recent directive[9] by Maharashtra's Chief Information Commissioner, Rahul Pande requiring public authorities to proactively disclose all RTI applications and replies on departmental websites with keyword-searchable access, is a welcome move in this direction.
Safeguarding this digital information must, however, be treated as a matter of utmost importance. Robust software and cybersecurity measures should be deployed to ensure data protection and prevent any compromise of sensitive records. In cases wherein recovery of records is impossible, clear guidelines should be for the reconstruction of those files. Additionally, technical provisions such as firewalls, cloud-based backups, and regular audits should be institutionalised to ensure continuity and integrity of public data. This would not only eliminate the recurring excuse of “File not found” but strike at the root of multi-tier corruption that has long plagued public offices. In the larger scheme, digitisation is not merely a technological reform but a step toward restoring public trust, strengthening accountability, and reinforcing the citizens' right to information in its truest sense.
Author is an Advocate. Views Are Personal.
2013 SCC OnLine Del 3633 ↑
CIC/DS/A/2013/001788SA ↑
CIC/BS/C/2016/000025 ↑
CIC/DTCOR/A/2018/114317 ↑
CIC/AT/A/2006/00073 ↑
2009 SCC OnLine Del 1149 ↑
2021 SCC OnLine Del 194 ↑
CIC/SS/A/2012/000172 ↑
https://sic.maharashtra.gov.in/site/Downloads/Important_Letters/Directions Under Section 25(5) of the RTI.pdf ↑