The Indian Express: Ahmedabad: Wednesday, 10 August 2022.
The Gujarat Information Commission (GIC) has blacklisted and barred at least nine applicants from filing applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act in the last two years, revealed an analysis by Mahiti Adhikar Gujarat Pahel (MAGP), an NGO.
One of the nine applicants, Manojkumar Sarapadadiya (47), a former conductor in a Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) bus and resident of Amreli, who was blacklisted for his lifetime by a 2020 order, has decided to move the Gujarat High Court.
The GIC had ordered that he could not seek information under the RTI Act from any officers of any department in the state for his lifetime citing that information sought by him is not on par with the objective of the RTI Act.
Manojkumar said he filed nearly 150 RTIs between 2016 and 2018 “only with GSRTC department, pertaining to corruption at multiple levels”, although the state information commissioner’s order notes that he has filed nearly 170 RTIs and 140 first appeals.
“I also filed several complaints within the department and various authorities in this period on ongoing corruption within the department based on the information that was provided under RTI but no tangible action has been taken till date,” he said.
Manojkumar, was dismissed from service following a departmental inquiry in 2017 on allegations of ticket misappropriation.
Manojkumar, who is currently unemployed and takes on odd jobs, said, “I, along with some others who now stand blacklisted by information commissioner orders, plan to approach the Gujarat High Court challenging these orders. We are still deciding what to do and high court lawyers cost a lot, hence we will take a joint decision on this.”
He adds that he is already involved in a litigation with the GSRTC, which has appealed against an Ahmedabad labour court’s order that had held his dismissal from service as “illegal”.
A Central Information Commission official on condition of anonymity said, “It is correct that there is indeed no direct provision in the Act to penalise applicants but in my experience, we see applicants coming with a motive of taking revenge or with the motive of blackmailing some officer, in the name of public interest. It is not a platform to settle scores, it is a platform for legitimate public interest matters. Blacklisting is not new and the Central Information Commission too did it twice in the past, five to six years ago. If reasonable grounds are established of public interest, information is not denied and the Central Information Commission too ensures that the information is provided.”
The Indian Express had in January 2021 reported about the order blacklisting Manojkumar and three others all from one family by the GIC.
MAGP’s analysis shows that Information Commissioner KM Adhvaryu ordered that all educational institutes run by Sarva Vidyalay Kadi and District Education Officer of Gandhinagar to “not give any information” to a now blacklisted applicant Amita Mishra “now or in the future”.
Mishra had sought information from one of the institutes under Sarva Vidyalay Kadi. Similarly, one applicant Narendrasinh Chavda from Ahmedabad, who had filed RTIs seeking details of board members, their contact details, minutes of board meeting of Gujarat Cancer and Research Institute, MP Shah Cancer Hospital and also copies of government resolutions and orders regarding sanctioning of new posts between 2015 and 2020 before the UN Mehta Institute of Cardiology and Research Centre, has been blacklisted.
While blacklisting Adhvaryu had ruled that “no information to be provided to applicant in any of the RTI” filed by the applicant before the three hospitals henceforth. The GIC had also observed that the applicant has “motive of harassing the institute” and was earlier working with the said institutes.
The latest such order was one against a Bhavnagar resident Mahipal Indrajeet Gohil in an order dated June 18, 2022.
Seeking information pertaining to basketball coach recruitment at Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University, the PIO while denying the information had noted that the applicant has filed 15 RTI applications and has also filed a PIL regarding recruitment process in basketball.
State Information commissioner Ramesh Karia had ruled that information need not be given to the applicant as the applicant’s repeated RTIs take up a lot of time of the institute as well as the commission. It was also noted that given that Gohil has filed a PIL, he can seek the information through the concerned courts.
Other reasons cited by the state information commissioners while blacklisting include information being sought in order to bring “moral pressure on the public authority”, as well as “mental pressure on PIO and officers of the organisation”, information being sought with “malafide intention of harassing officers”, “organisation work being hampered”.
Conduct and behaviour of appellants are also reflected in such orders, with some orders observing that applicant was “shouting and furious”, “shouted while arguing”, “applicant seems to be cantankerous”, among other such observations.
PIOs meanwhile, while rejecting information sought by applicants, as analysed by Mahiti Adhikar Gujarat Pahel, have cited reasons such as applicant repeatedly asking for the same information is “habitual of putting false allegations”, applicant not having paid electricity bills, applicant taking “revenge” for an institute taking action against applicant for misconduct, applicant being former staffer against whom disciplinary action was taken due to negligence in discharge of duty, and RTIs filed with “malafide intention”.
RTI activist Pankti Jog points out that nowhere in the RTI Act is there a provision of penalising or blacklisting applicants and such kind of orders set a bad precedent.
“These kinds of orders take away the legal right available to a citizen. Moreover the information commissioner orders place reliance on Supreme Court and High Court orders but a lot of these orders were favourable to the rights of an applicant and had made some cursory remarks, which are now being cited out of context in the information commissioner’s orders,” adds Jog.
The Gujarat Information Commission (GIC) has blacklisted and barred at least nine applicants from filing applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act in the last two years, revealed an analysis by Mahiti Adhikar Gujarat Pahel (MAGP), an NGO.
One of the nine applicants, Manojkumar Sarapadadiya (47), a former conductor in a Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) bus and resident of Amreli, who was blacklisted for his lifetime by a 2020 order, has decided to move the Gujarat High Court.
The GIC had ordered that he could not seek information under the RTI Act from any officers of any department in the state for his lifetime citing that information sought by him is not on par with the objective of the RTI Act.
Manojkumar said he filed nearly 150 RTIs between 2016 and 2018 “only with GSRTC department, pertaining to corruption at multiple levels”, although the state information commissioner’s order notes that he has filed nearly 170 RTIs and 140 first appeals.
“I also filed several complaints within the department and various authorities in this period on ongoing corruption within the department based on the information that was provided under RTI but no tangible action has been taken till date,” he said.
Manojkumar, was dismissed from service following a departmental inquiry in 2017 on allegations of ticket misappropriation.
Manojkumar, who is currently unemployed and takes on odd jobs, said, “I, along with some others who now stand blacklisted by information commissioner orders, plan to approach the Gujarat High Court challenging these orders. We are still deciding what to do and high court lawyers cost a lot, hence we will take a joint decision on this.”
He adds that he is already involved in a litigation with the GSRTC, which has appealed against an Ahmedabad labour court’s order that had held his dismissal from service as “illegal”.
A Central Information Commission official on condition of anonymity said, “It is correct that there is indeed no direct provision in the Act to penalise applicants but in my experience, we see applicants coming with a motive of taking revenge or with the motive of blackmailing some officer, in the name of public interest. It is not a platform to settle scores, it is a platform for legitimate public interest matters. Blacklisting is not new and the Central Information Commission too did it twice in the past, five to six years ago. If reasonable grounds are established of public interest, information is not denied and the Central Information Commission too ensures that the information is provided.”
The Indian Express had in January 2021 reported about the order blacklisting Manojkumar and three others all from one family by the GIC.
MAGP’s analysis shows that Information Commissioner KM Adhvaryu ordered that all educational institutes run by Sarva Vidyalay Kadi and District Education Officer of Gandhinagar to “not give any information” to a now blacklisted applicant Amita Mishra “now or in the future”.
Mishra had sought information from one of the institutes under Sarva Vidyalay Kadi. Similarly, one applicant Narendrasinh Chavda from Ahmedabad, who had filed RTIs seeking details of board members, their contact details, minutes of board meeting of Gujarat Cancer and Research Institute, MP Shah Cancer Hospital and also copies of government resolutions and orders regarding sanctioning of new posts between 2015 and 2020 before the UN Mehta Institute of Cardiology and Research Centre, has been blacklisted.
While blacklisting Adhvaryu had ruled that “no information to be provided to applicant in any of the RTI” filed by the applicant before the three hospitals henceforth. The GIC had also observed that the applicant has “motive of harassing the institute” and was earlier working with the said institutes.
The latest such order was one against a Bhavnagar resident Mahipal Indrajeet Gohil in an order dated June 18, 2022.
Seeking information pertaining to basketball coach recruitment at Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University, the PIO while denying the information had noted that the applicant has filed 15 RTI applications and has also filed a PIL regarding recruitment process in basketball.
State Information commissioner Ramesh Karia had ruled that information need not be given to the applicant as the applicant’s repeated RTIs take up a lot of time of the institute as well as the commission. It was also noted that given that Gohil has filed a PIL, he can seek the information through the concerned courts.
Other reasons cited by the state information commissioners while blacklisting include information being sought in order to bring “moral pressure on the public authority”, as well as “mental pressure on PIO and officers of the organisation”, information being sought with “malafide intention of harassing officers”, “organisation work being hampered”.
Conduct and behaviour of appellants are also reflected in such orders, with some orders observing that applicant was “shouting and furious”, “shouted while arguing”, “applicant seems to be cantankerous”, among other such observations.
PIOs meanwhile, while rejecting information sought by applicants, as analysed by Mahiti Adhikar Gujarat Pahel, have cited reasons such as applicant repeatedly asking for the same information is “habitual of putting false allegations”, applicant not having paid electricity bills, applicant taking “revenge” for an institute taking action against applicant for misconduct, applicant being former staffer against whom disciplinary action was taken due to negligence in discharge of duty, and RTIs filed with “malafide intention”.
RTI activist Pankti Jog points out that nowhere in the RTI Act is there a provision of penalising or blacklisting applicants and such kind of orders set a bad precedent.
“These kinds of orders take away the legal right available to a citizen. Moreover the information commissioner orders place reliance on Supreme Court and High Court orders but a lot of these orders were favourable to the rights of an applicant and had made some cursory remarks, which are now being cited out of context in the information commissioner’s orders,” adds Jog.
.JPG)
.JPG)
