Clarification requests under RTI Act should not burden CPIOs. Public authorities not obliged to provide inference-based information.

The Central Information Commission clarified that seeking clarification or inference from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) under the Right to Information (RTI) Act should not impose undue pressure on them. Public authorities are not obligated to provide information requiring inferences. The CPIO was directed to provide relevant rules/notifications to address the appellant's query effectively. The Commission advised Public Authorities to introduce/update FAQs sections on their websites to address common queries, reducing the burden of RTI applications seeking clarifications. The appeal was disposed of with directions to provide necessary information and enhance proactive disclosures through FAQs sections.

---

---

Issues:
- Interpretation of RTI Act regarding seeking clarification/inference from CPIO.
- Scope of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in providing information.
- Obligations of CPIO in responding to RTI applications.
- Directives to provide relevant rules/notifications to the appellant.
- Advisory on introducing/updating FAQs Section on the website of Public Authorities.

Interpretation of RTI Act regarding seeking clarification/inference from CPIO:
The Central Information Commission analyzed the appellant's RTI application seeking information on the percentage of incentive amount payable to the GST Department as GST tax. The Commission observed that the relief sought was more about seeking clarification or inference from the CPIO rather than accessing information directly. It emphasized that stretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences for the CPIO could create undue pressure on them to provide accurate deductions to avoid penal provisions under the Act.

Scope of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in providing information:
Referring to a judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in a related matter, the Commission highlighted that public authorities are not obligated to provide information that requires drawing inferences or making assumptions. The Commission emphasized that public authorities are not required to furnish advice or opinions to RTI applicants. However, in a liberal view and to facilitate the proceedings, the Commission directed the CPIO to provide an extract of relevant rules/notifications related to 'consideration' to address the appellant's query regarding the incentive amount payable as GST tax.

Obligations of CPIO in responding to RTI applications:
The CPIO, during the hearing, explained that all GST rules and notifications are publicly available and self-explanatory. He clarified that under GST, there is no concept of an incentive but rather 'consideration.' The CPIO agreed to provide the appellant with the relevant extract of notifications to address the information sought. The Commission directed the CPIO to provide this information free of cost to the appellant within 15 days from the date of the order.

Directives to provide relevant rules/notifications to the appellant:
The Commission, while acknowledging the appellant's difficulty in interpreting the information provided by the CPIO, directed the CPIO to furnish the extract of relevant rules/notifications regarding 'consideration' to clarify the percentage of incentive amount payable as GST tax. This directive aimed to ensure that the appellant receives the necessary information to address his query effectively.

Advisory on introducing/updating FAQs Section on the website of Public Authorities:
In an advisory, the Commission highlighted the increasing trend of RTI applications seeking clarifications on policy/procedure matters of Public Authorities. It recommended that Public Authorities consider introducing or updating a FAQs section on their websites to address commonly sought issues, clarifications, orders, and circulars. This proactive step would help in providing relevant information to the public and potentially reduce the burden of RTI applications seeking clarifications rather than specific records.

In conclusion, the Commission disposed of the appeal by directing the CPIO to provide the necessary information to the appellant and advised Public Authorities to consider enhancing proactive disclosures through FAQs sections on their websites.

---