Why the Dismissal of an RTI Appeal for Flight-Schedule Data Highlights the ‘Public Domain’ Exemption and Misuse Provisions under the Right to Information Act

On 23 April 2018 the applicant, identified as Anupkumar Ramanarayan Sony, submitted a request under the Right to Information Act to the Central Information Commission seeking, inter alia, the flight numbers, operating airlines and the actual departure times of all flights operating from the city of Mumbai to Indore on the specific date of 13 April 2018, as well as a comprehensive list of all flights scheduled within the ensuing twenty-four-hour period. The request was addressed to the Central Public Information Officers of both the Airport Authority of India and the private operator Mumbai International Airport Private Limited, yet the applicant received no response from either authority, prompting him to lodge a first appeal on 20 May 2018 which likewise eluded any substantive reply. Consequently, the applicant filed a second appeal on 28 June 2018, after which the Central Information Commission convened a hearing conducted via video-conference wherein the applicant expressed dissatisfaction with the handling of his application and representatives of both the Airport Authority of India and Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. were present, the latter alleging that a written submission had already been filed with the Commission and that a copy had been forwarded to the appellant. After reviewing the material, Information Commissioner Divya Prakash Sinha observed that the flight-schedule information sought by the applicant was already freely accessible in the public domain, criticised the use of the RTI mechanism for obtaining such readily available data as an unwarranted burden on the authorities, and accordingly dismissed the appeal, noting that the misuse conflicted with the nation’s ongoing digitalisation efforts and constituted an improper exploitation of the statutory right to information.

A fundamental question is whether the Commission’s determination that the flight-schedule particulars, which are publicly displayed on airline and airport websites, fall within the exemption stipulated in Section 8(1)(a) of the Right to Information Act, which bar disclosure of information that ‘is already in the public domain’. The statutory language of Section 8(1)(a) requires a factual enquiry into whether the material is indeed published, readily accessible without any hindrance, and whether the applicant can obtain it through ordinary channels without invoking the statutory right, and the Commission’s finding that the same data could be retrieved from online timetables satisfies this enquiry, rendering the exemption applicable.

Perhaps the more important legal issue concerns whether the appellant’s request, aimed at obtaining data that could be accessed without filing an RTI, constitutes a misuse of the Act sufficient to attract the punitive measures prescribed under Section 20, which authorises the imposition of a penalty for providing incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, or for filing a frivolous application. While Section 20 primarily addresses the conduct of the information-providing authority, the Act also empowers the Central Information Commission to levy a penalty on an applicant who makes an application that is evidently frivolous or intended to harass the public authority, and the Commission’s observation that the request unnecessarily burdened the Airport Authority of India aligns with the legislative intent to deter such exploitative filings.

Another possible view is whether the public authorities, notwithstanding the information’s public-domain status, were obligated to either furnish the data directly or at least guide the applicant to the specific online portals where the flight schedules were available, thereby fulfilling their duty under Section 4(1) to provide any information that is in their possession. Jurisdictions interpreting the RTI regime have held that when information is openly published, the authority may reasonably rely on the public to retrieve it, yet it remains advisable for the authority to issue a directed reference to the source, ensuring compliance with the principle of reasonable assistance and avoiding a technical denial that could be perceived as non-compliance.

Perhaps the procedural significance lies in whether the appellant was accorded the principles of natural justice, including a fair hearing and the opportunity to be heard, given that the hearing was conducted via video-conference and the appellant expressed dissatisfaction with the handling of his application. The Right to Information Act embeds the requirement of an opportunity to be heard before rejecting an application, and the Commission’s conduct of a virtual hearing wherein both the appellant and the representatives of the concerned authorities were present satisfies the procedural safeguard, although the adequacy of the notice and the clarity of the reasons for dismissal would be examined under the test of reasoned decision-making established by administrative-law jurisprudence.

A further legal question arises as to how this decision may influence future RTI practice, particularly regarding the balance between encouraging transparency and preventing the clogging of information-seeker channels with requests for data that are already disseminated through digital platforms as part of the nation’s broader digitalisation agenda. The precedent set by the Commission’s dismissal signals to applicants that the right to information is not a carte blanche to compel public authorities to reproduce material that is already accessible, reinforcing the need for requesters to conduct prior searches, and it may prompt the Central Information Commission to issue more detailed guidelines delineating the threshold of ‘public domain’ in an increasingly online information environment.