IBBI Rejects RTI Appeal Seeking 1986 Mitra Committee Report On NFDC, Citing Lack Of Custody Of Records
Court / Authority
Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board
Update / Judgement Date
15 Jul 2026
Source
WCP News Bulletin
Author
Manas Yadav — WCP Legal Desk
Reading Time
2 min read

Background
The First Appellate Authority of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has dismissed an RTI appeal filed by Silpa Mukherjee seeking a copy of the 1986 Mitra Committee Report on the functioning of the National Film Development Corporation (NFDC), holding that the requested information was not held by the Board. The appeal arose after the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of IBBI responded to Mukherjee’s RTI application stating that no information relevant to the request was available with the authority. The appellant had specifically sought the report prepared by a one-member inquiry committee headed by Ashok Mitra, former Secretary in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, which examined NFDC’s operations in the mid-1980s.
While adjudicating the appeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, the First Appellate Authority undertook a brief statutory analysis of the scope of “information” and “right to information” under the Act. It reiterated that access under RTI extends only to material that is held by or under the control of the concerned public authority, subject to statutory exemptions. The Authority noted that IBBI’s regulatory mandate is confined to insolvency and bankruptcy processes and related institutional frameworks. Since the Mitra Committee Report concerned the functioning of NFDC and did not relate to insolvency or bankruptcy matters, the Board did not possess or control the requested document.
On this basis, the appellate authority concluded that the CPIO’s response was legally sufficient and that no further disclosure obligation could be imposed on IBBI.
Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of, reaffirming that RTI obligations are limited to records actually held by the concerned public authority and cannot extend to information lying outside its statutory domain.
Full Judgement / Attachment
Full Judgement