Moneylife: Pune: Friday,
13 September 2024.
Recently, Maharashtra’s
information commissioner, Makarand Ranade, disposed of 2,500 complaints filed
under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, all from one applicant, admonishing
him for the overbearing number of applications.
Last week, on 6th September, central information commissioner (CIC) Vinod Kumar Tiwari took strong objection to the 2,200 RTI applications filed by RTI applicant Radha Raman Tripathy to the Chandigarh income tax office. His RTI applications, mostly on the same issue, which he has been filing since 2022 and some of which as claimed in the CIC order were already heard by different benches of the commission, invited CIC Tiwari’s ire.
CIC Tiwari alleged that RTI applicant Tripathy had no genuine interest in procuring information but used RTI to harass the income tax department. He observed in his order that “The Complainant has filed numerous RTI applications seeking similar information in each of his RTI applications to pressurise the public authority rather than actual interest in getting the information denied to him, if any.
“This intention of the Complainant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.” He clubbed together the applicant’s 100-odd second appeal hearings. Earlier, around 2,000 complaints/ second appeal hearings were heard by different information commissions.
CIC Tiwari, in his order, directed the RTI applicant Tripathy that “The Commission, like on several occasions in the past, again advises the Complainant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act in future.”
However, at the online RTI Katta meeting last Sunday, there were debates over whether Information commissioners should object to multiple RTIs, as the RTI Act does not mention any upper limit on how many RTI applications you can file. The opinions hovered around whether seeking transparency would receive a jerk due to the negative stance taken by the information commissioners or whether citizens have the right to file any number of RTI applications in the absence of a record of suo motu disclosures under the RTI Act by the public authorities (PA). Some felt that it is the PA heads that should be taken to task and not citizens.
Nevertheless, CIC Tiwari analysed in detail as to why the RTI applicant was not on the right path of the RTI Act.
The RTI applicant Mr Tripathy did not file the first appeal or second appeal:
“…the Complainant has not filed any First Appeal or Second Appeal in the above-mentioned cases as also in all cases adjudicated by this bench so far, and reasons for the same could not be ascertained as he was not present before the Commission despite notice.
“In a Complaint case, the Commission cannot give any relief for information under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only restricted role lies is to adjudicate whether the information has been malafidely denied by the CPIO or undue hindrance has been caused by the Respondent. It is noteworthy that the Complainant was not present before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the Respondents and further agitate the matter.
“The Commission is not inclined to accept the prayer of the Complainant to impose penalty as well as for recommendation of disciplinary proceedings against the concerned CPIOs in the absence of any mala fide on part of the Respondent. The conduct of the Complainant shows his intention to pressurise the CPIO with the fear of penal action than actual delivery of information to him.”
The number of cases heard by the CIC:
“Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 1,900 cases of the same Complainant against the same and different Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In this regard, it is also worth noting that a total number of 100 complaints cases including the present set of cases listed for today’s hearing and the same have been heard together simultaneously.
“The Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information in each of his RTI Applications with minor changes apparently to pressurise the Public Authority rather than actual interest in getting the information denied to him, if any. This intention of the Complainant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens.
“…20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely (by the PIO).”
Applicant seeking penalty to the CPIO:
The High Court (HC) of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh vs Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20 March 2009 had held as under:
“Section Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it.” In view of the above, the Commission finds that there is no mala fide on part of the respondent while replying to the RTI application. That being so, and in the absence of any merit in the complaint, the same is liable to be dismissed.
“The Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 1,200 cases of the same Complainant against same/ another Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In this regard, it is also worth noting that the instant complaints listed for today’s hearing have been heard together along with other 74 matters of the Complainant simultaneously and the Complainant has filed numerous RTI applications for the same nature of information sought by merely expanding the time span of information sought in each of his RTI applications…”
The RTI applicant used up the time and resources of the public authority disproportionately:
CIC Tiwari referred to the judgment of the High Court of Madras in the case of Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) vs B Bharathi [WP No.26781/2013 dated 17 September 2014] which has also given its opinion about such vexatious and repetitive litigation crippling the public authorities and held as follows:
“...The action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest....”
The Delhi HC, while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] has also made similar observations:
“……. This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this “sunshine Act”. A beneficial statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law.”
Last week, on 6th September, central information commissioner (CIC) Vinod Kumar Tiwari took strong objection to the 2,200 RTI applications filed by RTI applicant Radha Raman Tripathy to the Chandigarh income tax office. His RTI applications, mostly on the same issue, which he has been filing since 2022 and some of which as claimed in the CIC order were already heard by different benches of the commission, invited CIC Tiwari’s ire.
CIC Tiwari alleged that RTI applicant Tripathy had no genuine interest in procuring information but used RTI to harass the income tax department. He observed in his order that “The Complainant has filed numerous RTI applications seeking similar information in each of his RTI applications to pressurise the public authority rather than actual interest in getting the information denied to him, if any.
“This intention of the Complainant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.” He clubbed together the applicant’s 100-odd second appeal hearings. Earlier, around 2,000 complaints/ second appeal hearings were heard by different information commissions.
CIC Tiwari, in his order, directed the RTI applicant Tripathy that “The Commission, like on several occasions in the past, again advises the Complainant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act in future.”
However, at the online RTI Katta meeting last Sunday, there were debates over whether Information commissioners should object to multiple RTIs, as the RTI Act does not mention any upper limit on how many RTI applications you can file. The opinions hovered around whether seeking transparency would receive a jerk due to the negative stance taken by the information commissioners or whether citizens have the right to file any number of RTI applications in the absence of a record of suo motu disclosures under the RTI Act by the public authorities (PA). Some felt that it is the PA heads that should be taken to task and not citizens.
Nevertheless, CIC Tiwari analysed in detail as to why the RTI applicant was not on the right path of the RTI Act.
The RTI applicant Mr Tripathy did not file the first appeal or second appeal:
“…the Complainant has not filed any First Appeal or Second Appeal in the above-mentioned cases as also in all cases adjudicated by this bench so far, and reasons for the same could not be ascertained as he was not present before the Commission despite notice.
“In a Complaint case, the Commission cannot give any relief for information under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only restricted role lies is to adjudicate whether the information has been malafidely denied by the CPIO or undue hindrance has been caused by the Respondent. It is noteworthy that the Complainant was not present before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the Respondents and further agitate the matter.
“The Commission is not inclined to accept the prayer of the Complainant to impose penalty as well as for recommendation of disciplinary proceedings against the concerned CPIOs in the absence of any mala fide on part of the Respondent. The conduct of the Complainant shows his intention to pressurise the CPIO with the fear of penal action than actual delivery of information to him.”
The number of cases heard by the CIC:
“Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 1,900 cases of the same Complainant against the same and different Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In this regard, it is also worth noting that a total number of 100 complaints cases including the present set of cases listed for today’s hearing and the same have been heard together simultaneously.
“The Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information in each of his RTI Applications with minor changes apparently to pressurise the Public Authority rather than actual interest in getting the information denied to him, if any. This intention of the Complainant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens.
“…20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely (by the PIO).”
Applicant seeking penalty to the CPIO:
The High Court (HC) of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh vs Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20 March 2009 had held as under:
“Section Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it.” In view of the above, the Commission finds that there is no mala fide on part of the respondent while replying to the RTI application. That being so, and in the absence of any merit in the complaint, the same is liable to be dismissed.
“The Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 1,200 cases of the same Complainant against same/ another Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In this regard, it is also worth noting that the instant complaints listed for today’s hearing have been heard together along with other 74 matters of the Complainant simultaneously and the Complainant has filed numerous RTI applications for the same nature of information sought by merely expanding the time span of information sought in each of his RTI applications…”
The RTI applicant used up the time and resources of the public authority disproportionately:
CIC Tiwari referred to the judgment of the High Court of Madras in the case of Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) vs B Bharathi [WP No.26781/2013 dated 17 September 2014] which has also given its opinion about such vexatious and repetitive litigation crippling the public authorities and held as follows:
“...The action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest....”
The Delhi HC, while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] has also made similar observations:
“……. This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this “sunshine Act”. A beneficial statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law.”
.JPG)
.JPG)
