Missing Files under RTI Act — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

Unless proved that record was destroyed as per the prescribed rules of destruction/ retention policy, it is deemed that record continues to be held by public authority.

Claim of file missing or not traceable has no legality as it is not recognized as exception by RTI Act. By practice 'missing file' cannot be read into as exception in addition to exceptions prescribed by RTI Act. It amounts to breach of Public Records Act, 1993 and punishable with imprisonment up to a term of five years or with fine or both.

Public Authority has a duty to initiate action for this kind of loss of public record,in the form of 'not traceable' or 'missing'. The Public Authority also has a duty to designate an officer as Records Officer and protect the records. A thorough search for the file, inquiry to find out public servant responsible, disciplinary action and action under Public Records Act, reconstruction of alternative file, relief to the person affected by the loss of file are the basic actions the Public Authority is legitimately expected to perform.

Under the RTI Act, 2005, “file missing” or “not traceable” is a claim made by a Public Information Officer (PIO) that the specific record sought by an applicant cannot be located in the records of the public authority. The Delhi High Court in *Union of India v. Vishwas Bhamburkar* [2013 (297) ELT 500 (Del.)] firmly rejected this as a valid standalone ground for refusing information.

The key principle: the RTI Act, 2005 does not list “file missing” as an exemption. Sections 8(1) and 9 contain the only statutory exemptions a PIO may invoke. The Act contains no “file not found” exception, and courts have refused to read one in by implication. The legal presumption, as held by the CIC, is that a public authority continues to hold a record unless it proves the record was destroyed in accordance with the prescribed retention-and-destruction rules.

This presumption is reinforced by the Public Records Act, 1993, which obliges every government department to maintain, preserve, and manage its records through a designated Records Officer. The mere assertion that a file cannot be found is not proof of lawful destruction — it is, at minimum, evidence of a breakdown in record-keeping that the authority must itself investigate.

The public authority has a duty to designate “Public Records Officer” as per Public Records Act 1993. This Act is made to regulate the management, administration and preservation of public records of the Central Government, Union Territory Administrations, public sector undertakings, statutory bodies and corporations, commissions and committees constituted by the Central Government or a Union Territory Administration and matters connected therewith or incidental therewith.

The definition of “Public Records” U/S 2(e) of Public Records Act, 1993 (PRA 1993) is almost identical with the definition of Records under the RTI Act 2005. These Records can be sought under the RTI Act, 2005 as “Information” through RTI Application.

S 5 (1) Every records creating agency shall nominate one of its officers as records officer to discharge the functions under this Act.

Sec 6(1) The records officer shall be responsible for

1. Proper arrangement, maintenance and preservation of public records under his charge;
2. periodical review of all public records and weeding out public records of euphomeral value;
3. appraisal of public records which are more than twenty five years old in consultation with the National Archives of India or, as the case may be, the Archives of the Union territory with a view to retaining public records of permanent value;
4. destruction of public records in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed under subsection (1) of section 8;
5. compilation of a schedule of retention for public records in consultation with the National Archives of India or, as the case may be, the Archives of the Union Territory;
6. periodical review for downgrading of classified public records in such manner as may be prescribed;
7. adoption of such standards, procedures and techniques as may be recommended from time to time by the National Archives of India for improvement of record management system and maintenance of security of public records;
8. compilation of annual indices of public records;
9. compilation of organizational history and annual supplement thereto;
10. assisting the National Archives of India or, as the case may be, the Archives of the Union territory for public records management;
11. submission of annual report to the Director General or, as the case may be head of the Archives in such manner as may be prescribed;
12. transferring of records of any defunct body to the National Archives of India or the Archives of the Union Territory, as the case may be, for preservation.

Sec 7(1) The records officer shall, in the event of any unauthorized removal, destruction, defacement or alteration of any public records under his charge, forthwith take appropriate action for the recovery or restoration of such public records.

S 9. Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of section 4 or section 8 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both.

The public records act and rules ban government departments from destroying documents that are more than 25 years old, unless they have been “appraised”.

The National Archives of India, under the Culture Ministry, and similar bodies at the State level are required to keep tabs on “public records”, and help government departments separate worthless files from those that must be saved.

The documents considered to be of “permanent nature'' — but no longer required by the department which created them — are then shifted to the archives for safekeeping. There, they can be seen by research scholars.

Loss of records that are required to be kept and maintained permanently, if considered as evidence in a case, its missing should invite criminal complaint against officials under sections 201 of IPC (punishable with imprisonment which is directly proportional to the seriousness of the offence charged from 7 years to 10 years and for life).

If these files are part of public record and forms evidence, in any case, its destruction would be a serious crime of destruction of evidence. Otherwise, also it brings in the liability under Public Records Act 1993 which can extend to imprisonment up to five years and up to fine of Rs 10,000. Reading Right to Information Act, 2005 with Public Records Act, 1993 and Indian Penal Code, will lead to serious consequences for those who lose the records, besides the disciplinary action from the top administration.

Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Union Of India Vs. Vishwas Bhamburkar [2013(297)ELT500(Del.)] with regard to the plea of the Respondent authority of record being not traceable, has observed as follows :

“5. The Right to Information Act is a progressive legislation aimed at providing, to the citizens, access to the information which before the said Act came into force could not be claimed as a matter of right. The intent behind enactment of the Act is to disclose the information to the maximum extent possible subject of course to certain safeguards and exemptions. Therefore, while interpreting the provisions of the Act, the Court needs to take a view which would advance the objectives behind enactment of the Act, instead of taking a restrictive and hypertechnical approach which would obstruct the flow of information to the citizens.

6. This can hardly be disputed that if certain information is available with a public authority, that information must necessarily be shared with the applicant under the Act unless such information is exempted from disclosure under one or more provisions of the Act. It is not uncommon in the government departments to evade disclosure of the information taking the standard plea that the information sought by the applicant is not available. Ordinarily, the information which at some point of time or the other was available in the records of the government, should continue to be available with the concerned department unless it has been destroyed in accordance with the rules framed by that department for destruction of old record. Therefore, whenever an information is sought and it is not readily available, a thorough attempt needs to be made to search and locate the information wherever it may be available. It is only in a case where despite a thorough search and inquiry made by the responsible officer, it is concluded that the information sought by the applicant cannot be traced or was never available with the government or has been destroyed in accordance with the rules of the concerned department that the CPIO/PIO would be justified in expressing his inability to provide the desired information. Even in the case where it is found that the desired information though available in the record of the government at some point of time, cannot be traced despite best efforts made in this regard, the department concerned must necessarily fix the responsibility for the loss of the record and take appropriate departmental action against the officers/officials responsible for loss of the record. Unless such a course of action is adopted, it would be possible for any department/office, to deny the information which otherwise is not exempted from disclosure, wherever the said department/office finds it inconvenient to bring such information into public domain, and that in turn, would necessarily defeat the very objective behind enactment of the Right to Information Act.

7. 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. Even in a case where the PIO/CPIO takes a plea that the information sought by the applicant was never available with the government but, the Commission on the basis of the material available to it forms a prima facie opinion that the said information was in fact available with the government, it would be justified in directing an inquiry by a responsible officer of the department/office concerned, to again look into the matter rather deeply and verify whether such an information was actually available in the records of the government at some point of time or not. After all, it is quite possible that the required information may be located if a thorough search is made in which event, it could be possible to supply it to the applicant. Fear of disciplinary action, against the person responsible for loss of the information, will also work as a deterrence against the wilful suppression of the information, by vested interests. It would also be open to the Commission, to make an inquiry itself instead of directing an inquiry by the department/office concerned. Whether in a particular case, an inquiry ought to be made by the Commission or by the officer of the department/office concerned is a matter to be decided by the Commission in the facts and circumstances of each such case.”

Key takeaways from the Delhi HC judgment:

• A “file missing” plea is not automatically accepted — the PIO must demonstrate a thorough search was conducted.
• If a record existed at some point, it is presumed to still exist unless the authority proves lawful destruction under its retention rules.
• The department must fix responsibility for any genuine loss and take departmental action.
• The Information Commission has the power to direct an independent inquiry into the missing-file claim.

Based on the above discussion, the Commission thus holds: Unless proved that record was destroyed as per the prescribed rules of destruction/ retention policy, it is deemed that record continues to be held by public authority. Claim of file missing or not traceable has no legality as it was not recognised as exception by RTI Act. By practice 'missing file' cannot be read into as exception in addition to exceptions prescribed by RTI Act. It amounts to breach of Public Records Act, 1993 and punishable with imprisonment up to a term of five years or with fine or both. Public Authority has a duty to initiate action for this kind of loss of public record, in the form of 'not traceable' or 'missing'. The Public Authority also has a duty to designate an officer as Records Officer and protect the records. A thorough search for the file, inquiry to find out public servant responsible, disciplinary action and action under Public Records Act, reconstruction of alternative file, relief to the person affected by the loss of file are the basic actions the Public Authority is legitimately expected to perform.

The Commission, therefore, deems Public Authority as continuously holding the information, until and unless they prove that the information was destroyed in accordance with the existing rules provided for the same. Any claim of defence that the file is missing without any efforts to trace the same, would amount to denial of information which can be dealt with as per Section 20 of Right to Information Act, 2005.

Download the Decision: CIC Decision on Missing files under Right to Information Act

When a PIO responds that the file you sought is “not traceable” or “missing,” the authority is not done — it must follow a structured process. The table below summarises the mandatory steps a public authority must take, the officer responsible, and the citizen's parallel action at each stage.

If the PIO's “file missing” response is unsatisfactory — no search conducted, no responsibility fixed, no reconstruction attempted — you have three escalation routes:

Route 1 — First Appeal under Section 19(1): File with the First Appellate Authority (FAA) of the same public authority within 30 days of receiving the PIO's reply (or within 60 days if you had no reply — deemed refusal under Section 7(2)). Argue that the PIO failed to conduct a thorough search, did not produce a search report, and that the presumption of continued holding applies. See RTI First Appeal Guide and FAA First Appeal Timelines.

Route 2 — Second Appeal under Section 19(3): If the FAA also rejects your appeal (or does not decide within 30–45 days), file a second appeal before the Central Information Commission (for Central public authorities) or State Information Commission. The Commission has the power to direct an inquiry into the missing-file claim and impose penalties under Section 20. See File Second Appeal to CIC/SIC — 2026 Guide and RTI Second Appeal to CIC/SIC.

Route 3 — Complaint under Section 18: You may also file a direct complaint to the Information Commission under Section 18, which can investigate the failure to maintain records and recommend corrective action. See RTI Section 18 Complaint to CIC.

The loss of a public record is not merely an administrative lapse — it carries penal, criminal, and disciplinary consequences across multiple statutes:

RTI Act, 2005 — Section 20 penalty: If the Information Commission finds that the PIO denied information without reasonable cause (e.g., claiming “file missing” without conducting a search), it may impose a penalty of Rs 250 per day up to Rs 25,000. For persistent or deliberate refusal, the Commission may recommend disciplinary action against the PIO. See PIO Section 20 Penalty and RTI Section 20 Penalty — PIO and High Court.

Public Records Act, 1993 — Section 9: Whoever contravenes the provisions of Section 4 or Section 8 of the PRA (which govern preservation and authorised destruction) is punishable with imprisonment up to five years, or fine up to Rs 10,000, or both.

Indian Penal Code / Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Destruction of evidence (§201 IPC / §225 BNS): If a missing file constitutes or contains evidence in a judicial proceeding, its wilful destruction or concealment is a serious criminal offence carrying imprisonment proportionate to the seriousness of the underlying charge — from seven years to ten years, or imprisonment for life where the underlying offence is capital.

Departmental action: Even where criminal prosecution is not initiated, the department must fix responsibility and take departmental action against the officer responsible for the loss, as mandated by the Delhi High Court in *Vishwas Bhamburkar*.

If you suspect a file that should exist has gone missing — or you have already received a “not traceable” reply — the following approach maximises your chances of success.

Step 1 — Draft a specific application. Do not ask “give me my file.” Ask for the file number, diary number, dispatch entry, and movement register entries for the relevant file. If the PIO cannot locate it, the register entries themselves prove the file existed. See How to Write an Effective RTI Application and RTI Application Format.

Step 2 — File online via rtionline.gov.in. For Central Government authorities, file through the official portal rtionline.gov.in — the Rs 10 fee is paid online and the reply deadline is tracked automatically. See File RTI Online in India — 2026 Guide and rtionline.gov.in Portal Guide.

Step 3 — When the PIO says “not traceable,” file a focused follow-up. Seek:

1. The search report — who searched, where, on what dates.
2. The FIR or departmental complaint lodged regarding the missing record.
3. The action-taken report on the officer responsible.
4. Whether any reconstructed file or digital backup exists.
5. The retention schedule applicable to the record — was it due for destruction?

Step 4 — File a First Appeal. If the follow-up also fails, appeal under Section 19(1) arguing the presumption of continued holding and failure to conduct a thorough search per *Vishwas Bhamburkar*.

Step 5 — File a Second Appeal or Section 18 Complaint. Escalate to the CIC or SIC, which can direct an independent inquiry and impose penalties. See Second Appeal Guide and Section 18 Complaint Guide.

• Investigation/Inquiry reports under RTI.
• Vicarious Liability.
• Composite Petition under RTI Act.
• Privacy Rights of Public Servants.
• Substantially Financed.
• Public Authority under RTI Act.
• Definition of "Information" under RTI.
• Prescribed — meaning under the RTI Act.
• Section 20 — Penalty under RTI Act.
• Section 18 — Complaint to Information Commission.
• RTI Section 20 Penalty — PIO and High Court.
• PIO Section 20 Penalty Framework.
• File First Appeal under Section 19 — 2026 Guide.
• File Second Appeal to CIC/SIC — 2026 Guide.
• RTI Section 18 Complaint to CIC.

• RTI Online Portal — rtionline.gov.in — file and track RTI applications with Central Government authorities.
• DoPT RTI Cell — dopt.gov.in — Department of Personnel & Training guidelines and circulars on RTI implementation.
• PIB Press Release — RTI Act implementation — Government of India official communications on RTI.
• Central Information Commission — cic.gov.in — CIC decisions, orders, and cause lists.
• RTI Act, 2005 — Full text (rti.gov.in) — the bare Act and amendments.
• National Archives of India — Public Records Act, 1993 administration and record-management guidelines.

Last reviewed on: 10 July 2026