Information Commission cannot grant substantive relief beyond the provision of existing records under the RTI Act.

The petitioner, an Assistant Supervisor in an Engineering College, alleged that his email password was changed by an unauthorized person on 10.11.2017

Fearing data tampering, he filed a complaint with the Vidyanagar police station

Due to police inaction and a pending domestic dispute with his wife, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, on 12.02.2015 [sic, likely 2019] to track the progress of his complaint

After a series of appeals, the State Information Commission (Ayog) passed an order on 09.07.2020, observing that while the authorities had not provided the full details and the police had avoided filing an FIR, the Commission "cannot do anything" further

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction to the authorities to provide full information and take action against erring officers

1. Whether the respondent authorities were liable under the RTI Act for providing allegedly "half-hearted" or incomplete information regarding the petitioner's police complaint

2. Whether the court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to compel further disclosure or action against officers when no formal investigation had been initiated

The court considered the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, regarding the duty of the Public Information Officer and Appellate Authorities to provide information

It also assessed the scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

The court relied on the principle that if no records exist (e.g., no FIR or investigation), an authority cannot be compelled to provide details that do not exist in the official record

The court examined the petitioner’s grievance that the authorities provided incomplete information despite the Commission acknowledging the possibility of police delays

However, the court found that since no First Information Report (FIR) was ever registered and no formal investigation was carried out by the police regarding the cyber-tampering allegation, the respondent authorities had no further substantive data to disclose

The Analysis focused on the fact that the "half-hearted" nature of the reply was a result of the lack of underlying legal proceedings (the FIR), and therefore, the reply provided by the respondent was deemed "just and proper" under the circumstances of the administrative record

The court concluded that because no FIR had been registered or investigation conducted, the response provided by the respondent No. 2 was adequate and required no judicial interference

The Rule was discharged with no order as to costs