RTI applicant cannot insist on original documents after accessible records are supplied: Gujarat High Court (2026)

A practitioner evaluation of the Gujarat High Court's order dated 5 May 2026 in Himanshu Parsottambhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat & Ors., R/Special Civil Application No. 15120 of 2025. The first takeaway is direct: RTI gives access to records, inspection and copies. It does not give the applicant custody of original government or university documents once accessible records have been supplied. The second takeaway is procedural: the Information Commission is not a court for deciding whether the supplied information proves a recruitment or reservation-law violation.

The Gujarat High Court's core holding is this: once documents accessible to the public authority have been supplied, an RTI applicant cannot insist that the CPIO supply the original documents. The Public Information Officer's duty under Section 2(f) is to provide access to information held by, or accessible to, the public authority. That usually means inspection, certified copies, extracts, data or records in the form permitted by the Act and Rules. It does not mean handing over the original file, original roster, original selection record or original register to the applicant. Indian Kanoon text of Himanshu Parmar v State of Gujarat

The second holding follows from the first. After copies of accessible records are supplied, an applicant cannot turn the RTI appeal into a service-law, reservation-law, recruitment-law, or evidence-discovery proceeding about whether the information is “correct” in a wider factual sense. The Commission can examine whether records were held, searched, supplied or wrongly withheld. It is not meant to decide whether the recruitment process itself was illegal.

• Judgment PDF uploaded on RTI Wiki: Himanshu Parsottambhai Parmar v State of Gujarat, Gujarat High Court, order dated 5 May 2026
• Public text: Indian Kanoon - Himanshu Parsottambhai Parmar v State of Gujarat

The order should be read in two layers:

1. Original documents point. RTI does not require the CPIO to hand over original records once accessible copies or inspection have been provided.
2. Correctness dispute point. RTI forums do not decide the underlying recruitment, reservation or service-law dispute merely because the applicant says the supplied information is incomplete, arbitrary or wrong.

For practical use, the first point is the headline. For appeals and PIO replies, the second point explains why the applicant must use the supplied copies in the proper legal forum instead of asking the Commission to decide the merits.

The petitioner, appearing in person, had filed a series of RTI applications concerning temporary teaching appointments at the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda. The information sought included category-wise temporary teaching posts, applications received, selected and non-selected candidates, reservation-related information, SC/ST representation in the selection committee, and related appointment records. The dispute arose after the Gujarat Information Commission passed a common order in Appeal No. A-4684-2024 and Complaint No. C-0145-2025 on 15 September 2025.

The petitioner said the University had not complied with reservation policy, had not uploaded the selected candidates list, and had supplied arbitrary or incomplete typed information without supporting office records. He sought quashing of the Commission's order, supply of the requested information, and compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act.

The respondents said the information directed by the Commission had been supplied. The record before the Court also noted that the petitioner had filed more than 25 RTI applications one after another on connected issues.

The Court relied on the Delhi High Court's Division Bench decision in Narendra Tyagi v Assistant Director (CPIO), LPA 764/2023, decided on 6 December 2023. Narendra Tyagi, in turn, applied the older Delhi High Court decision in Hansi Rawat v Punjab National Bank, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 168. The principle is simple: RTI proceedings do not become a trial about whether the answer supplied by the PIO is correct.

The Gujarat High Court then applied Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Information means material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models and electronic data held by or accessible to a public authority. The PIO discharges the RTI duty by providing the information and documents accessible to the public authority.

On the facts, the Court held that the accessible documents had already been supplied. The petitioner's insistence that original documents be supplied was not within the PIO's purview. The petition was dismissed as meritless.

This is the operational change. RTI applicants should ask for certified copies, inspection, extracts, data sheets, or attested copies of file notings. They should not ask the PIO to part with the original file or original register. The original remains with the public authority because it is the official record, and it may be needed for audit, court, administration, record retention and future accountability.

If authenticity is the applicant's concern, the right remedy is not custody of the original. The practical remedies are:

• ask for certified copies under the applicable RTI fee rules;
• ask for inspection of the original record on a fixed date;
• ask the PIO to certify that the copy supplied is a true copy of the record held;
• ask for the page number, file number, register number or dispatch number from which the copy is taken.

The decision strengthens a line of cases that separates access to records from adjudication of the underlying dispute. A Commission can ask whether a record exists, whether it is held by the authority, whether it has been supplied, whether an exemption applies, whether delay occurred, and whether penalty or compensation should be considered. But it is not expected to decide a full disputed question such as whether a recruitment process violated reservation policy or whether the public authority's factual statement is true.

That does not mean false replies are consequence-free. A knowingly false reply may still invite penalty under Section 20, and a public authority can be directed to search and supply records. But the applicant must show the RTI breach through record-based grounds. The Commission is not a substitute for the service tribunal, university grievance forum, writ court on recruitment merits, or disciplinary authority.

This judgment makes Section 2(f) the starting gate. The applicant should ask: “What material record exists?” The PIO should ask: “What material is held by or accessible to this office?” If the answer is a document, register, file noting, circular, email, order, list, report, data sheet or record, the RTI Act is engaged. If the request asks the PIO to decide legality, explain motives, verify the truth of an answer, or produce an original document for custody transfer, the request moves outside ordinary Section 2(f) access.

The Court noticed the allegation that more than 25 applications had been filed one after another. It also reproduced the Commission's expectation that the complainant would refrain from filing special applications in this regard. That language will likely be cited by public authorities where repeated RTI applications are used to keep the same dispute alive after records have been supplied.

Applicants should not read this as a blanket bar on follow-up RTIs. A follow-up RTI is valid if it asks for a different record, a missing annexure, the dispatch proof, the file noting on search, the record-retention register, or the speaking order on a specific point. The risk arises when the same dispute is repeated in different wording after the authority has supplied the available records.

After this judgment, a serious applicant should draft with a record-first method.

• Ask for certified copy of the advertisement for the posts.
• Ask for category-wise roster register entries for the relevant year.
• Ask for minutes of the selection committee.
• Ask for marks awarded under each head if the authority maintains such a marks sheet.
• Ask for the final selected list and waiting list.
• Ask for the rule, circular or resolution relied on for temporary appointments.
• Ask for file notings and approval sheets for the appointment process.
• Ask for the record-retention rule if the authority says a record is not available.

Avoid questions such as:

• Why did the University violate reservation policy?
• Is the selection illegal?
• Why was my representation ignored?
• Confirm whether the information given earlier is false.
• Supply the original file to me.

Those questions either seek reasons and opinions not recorded in a material record, or seek adjudication of a dispute. RTI can get the file. The next forum decides the illegality.

An applicant can still challenge an incomplete reply. The challenge should be structured like this:

1. Identify the exact item in the RTI application.
2. Identify the exact record that should exist, such as a roster register, selection committee minutes, dispatch register or circular.
3. Say whether the PIO supplied no record, a partial record, or an unsigned typed summary.
4. Ask the First Appellate Authority to direct a fresh search and supply certified copies of the record held.
5. If the authority says the record does not exist, ask for the file noting or certificate recording that position.

This keeps the appeal within Section 2(f), Section 7 and Section 19. It avoids asking the Commission to become a fact-finding court on the merits of the recruitment dispute.

PIOs now have stronger support for this reply structure:

The information held by this public authority on item [number] is enclosed at pages [x] to [y]. The Right to Information Act, 2005 requires supply of material records held by or accessible to the public authority. The Act does not require the Public Information Officer to adjudicate upon the correctness of the record or decide the underlying service / recruitment dispute. If the applicant disputes the legality or correctness of the process, the applicant may pursue the remedy available under the applicable law.

That paragraph should be used only after a real search and supply of records. It is not a shield for lazy replies. A PIO who supplies a typed summary when the applicant asked for certified copies of an existing file still faces appeal risk.

Public authorities can maintain a matrix of repeated applications on the same subject. The matrix should show date, application number, points asked, records supplied, dispatch proof, and appeal outcome. If the same applicant repeats the same issue, the PIO can refer to the earlier supplied records and provide copies again if required by the RTI Rules, or explain that no further record is held.

The judgment clearly says that insistence on original documents being supplied is not within the PIO's purview. RTI gives access, inspection and copies. It does not transfer custody of the original government file to the applicant.

• Keep RTI replies document-based. Name every document enclosed.
• Avoid vague lines like “information is attached” without page numbering.
• If a typed statement is supplied, mention the source record from which it is derived.
• Where the applicant asks for original records, offer inspection and certified copies.
• Where no record exists, say so clearly and record the search.
• Train PIOs to separate RTI disclosure from grievance redressal.
• Ask the dealing branch to preserve the file once an RTI dispute has entered first appeal or second appeal.

The decision should not be misused to deny valid RTI requests. It does not say that a PIO may refuse a record because the applicant has a grievance. It does not say that repeated applications are automatically illegal. It does not say that a public authority can provide unsupported typed answers when certified copies of existing records are sought. It does not dilute the penalty power under Section 20 where there is malafide denial, knowingly incorrect information, destruction of information, or obstruction.

The safe reading is narrower. RTI is a record-access law. If the record exists and is not exempt, supply it. If the applicant wants a court to decide whether the record proves illegality, the applicant must take that record to the proper forum.

Subject: Request under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

I request certified copies of the following records held by [name of public authority]:

1. The advertisement / notification issued for [post / process] for the year [year].
2. The roster register page or category-wise vacancy statement relied on for the said process.
3. The minutes of the selection committee meeting held for the said process.
4. The final selected list and waiting list approved by the competent authority.
5. The file noting and approval sheet by which the said list was approved.
6. The circular, rule, resolution or office order relied on for treating the appointment as temporary / contractual / outsourced.

I seek copies of records as held by the public authority. I do not seek an opinion or adjudication of the legality of the process.

[Name, address, date, signature]

This is an important pro-administration ruling, but not an anti-transparency ruling. It rewards precise record requests and punishes attempts to make the RTI appeal system decide every connected grievance. For the RTI seeker, the lesson is tactical: use RTI to obtain the file, then use the file in the proper forum. For the PIO, the lesson is equally clear: supply the record, document the search, avoid argumentative replies, and do not let the RTI desk become the recruitment court.

• Information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
• Grounds for rejection under the RTI Act.
• Guidelines for Public Information Officers.
• Template: standard PIO reply within 30 days.
• Template: first appeal.
• CBSE v Aditya Bandopadhyay.
• Bhagat Singh v CIC.
• Case law library.

1. Himanshu Parsottambhai Parmar v State of Gujarat & Ors., R/Special Civil Application No. 15120 of 2025, High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, order dated 5 May 2026.
2. Indian Kanoon public text of the Gujarat High Court order.
3. Narendra Tyagi v Assistant Director (CPIO), LPA 764/2023, Delhi High Court, order dated 6 December 2023.
4. Hansi Rawat v Punjab National Bank, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 168.
5. The Right to Information Act, 2005, Sections 2(f), 6, 7, 19, 19(8)(b), and 20.

26 May 2026