Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses RTI Plea Seeking Legal Opinion; Holds RTI Act Cannot Be Used to Seek Advice or Interpretation of Law

Case Name: Tripurari Chopra v. Central Information Commission and Others

Date of Decision: 20 January 2026

Citation: CWP-39392-2025

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the orders passed by the Public Information Officer, the First Appellate Authority, and the Central Information Commission, holding that queries seeking legal opinion, interpretation of law, or advisory clarification do not fall within the definition of “information” under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Court reiterated that the RTI mechanism cannot be invoked to compel public authorities to provide legal advice or opinions.

Summary: The petitioner approached the High Court challenging the rejection of her RTI application, wherein she sought a certified copy of the law or provision under which an Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Exclusive Court for Fast Tracking of Heinous Crimes Against Women could change the legal aid counsel of a complainant without her consent, notice, or permission, particularly on the date of final arguments. The petitioner also challenged the dismissal of her first and second appeals by the appellate authorities.

The petitioner contended that the information sought was already in existence and accessible to the public authority, and that denial thereof violated the object of transparency under the RTI Act. It was further argued that the information was necessary for adjudication of a criminal appeal pending before the High Court.

Upon examination of the RTI query, the Court found that the petitioner was, in substance, seeking a legal determination and opinion as to the permissibility of judicial and legal aid procedures, rather than any existing record or document maintained by the public authority. The Court noted that such queries require interpretation of law, drawing of inferences, and provision of legal advice, which is impermissible under the RTI framework.

The Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, reiterating that public authorities are not obligated under the RTI Act to create information, provide opinions, or offer legal advice. The reference to “opinion” or “advice” in Section 2(f) applies only to such material already available on record with the public authority.

Finding that the Public Information Officer and the appellate authorities had correctly applied the law, the Court held that no interference was warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the impugned orders declining the RTI request, holding that the application was not maintainable as it sought legal opinion rather than information within the meaning of the RTI Act.