Indian Express: Parimal Dabhi: Ahmedabad: Saturday, May 03, 2025.
In its order, the Gujarat Information Commission recorded that since 2009, the trio had filed 2,741 appeals/complaints before the panel.
Taking serious note of “improper and disproportionate number of applications” under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by three persons from a single family in Surat, Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) of Gujarat Information Commission (GIC) has passed an order restricting the trio from filing more than a total of six RTI applications in a calendar year. In its order, the Commission has recorded that since 2009, the three had filed 2,741 appeals/complaints before the panel.
The CIC passed the order on April 24 against three persons who have been identified as Mahendrasinh Brahmbhatt, Jashvantsinh Brahmbhatt, and Harsh Brahmbhatt. Mahendra and Jashvant are brothers and Harsh is their nephew. As mentioned in the order, Mahendrasinh and Jashvantsinh are editors of a Gujarati newspaper in Surat.
It is noteworthy that in a separate order earlier — on April 4 — another bench of the GIC had recommended the Gujarat government to initiate a probe by CID Crime into the allegations of harassment of members of Pandesara Industrial Cooperative Society by the three after getting information through RTI applications. Considering two FIRs of extortion against Jashvant as well, the GIC had also barred the three from filing RTI applications while instructing the state authorities not to consider any RTI application or appeal by them till they are exonerated of the criminal charges.
In its latest order, while clubbing a number of appeals by the Brahmbhatts, the CIC has noted that they have been seeking “huge information of very large period of time”. It further noted that they were “repeatedly” informed to file applications as per the provisions of the RTI Act — Section 6(1) — and specimens fixed by the state government by seeking information with exact detail.
Section 6(1) of the RTI Act says, “A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed…specifying the particulars of the information sought by him or her.”
The specimen fixed by Gujarat government to seek information includes that the applicant has to specify exact information sought in short and the timeframe for which the information is sought.
The order also noted another previous order in which Mahendra was “clearly” informed to withdraw applications/appeals, which were not filed as per the provisions of Section 6(1) of the RTI Act and the specimen fixed by the Gujarat government to seek information.
Referring to such applications, the Commission noted, “Because of such applications, circumstances are created where the genuine appellants’ process to get justice is delayed since it not only increases workload of public authorities, but also delays the hearing on their appeals.” It had also informed Mahendrasinh that if the provisions of the RTI Act are not followed, the Commission will be forced to issue prohibitory orders against him.
The order further noted that the applicants continued seeking information “without specifying the exact details”. It added that since the applicants continued seeking information in that manner, the public authorities concerned or the first appellate authorities asked them to inspect the records and get the information they wanted.
“However, as the information sought by the plaintiffs without specifying the exact details they want and the record of the information sought is huge in proportion, a number of times questions have been raised by them before the Commission of not getting satisfactory information; and therefore, they have presented second appeal/complaint,” the order recorded.
It said that as per the specimen fixed by the state government for RTI applications, the information has to be sought with specific details and in seeking such information, the public authorities’ resources should not be put in “disproportionate use”.
“The manner in which information has been sought by the plaintiffs is not in consonance with the provisions of the (RTI) Act. Seeking information in this manner, they are not entitled to get any information as per those provisions,” the order noted while adding that because of the huge number of applications filed by plaintiffs, the resources of public authorities are being utilised “disproportionately”.
The Commission stated that with an aim to “generously implement” the provisions of the RTI Act as per its “spirit” and “objective”, readiness was expressed to provide the information to the applicants during hearings if they specify the exact information they seek. But, it added, they continued filing RTI applications disproportionately.
Referring to the Preamble of the RTI Act which talks about necessity to ‘harmonising conflicting interests’, the Commission said, “The Commission cannot remain silent for long to the improper/excessive/disproportionate use of the Act which was formed by the Parliament of the country with an objective to attain the high ideals of democracy.”
In the order, the CIC has also referred to the prayer of the applicants in many of their appeals/complaints to take “punitive action” against a large number of public information officers in the state and said that it, “…points out that the objective of the appeal is not pure.”
Story continues below this ad
Citing the order dated April 4 against the Brahmbhatts in which they have been barred from filing RTI applications till they are exonerated from the case(s) mentioned in the order, the CIC noted in his latest order, “…even if they are exonerated, it seems imperative to put control on disproportionate use of RTI Act by them.”
The CIC then ordered to restrict the number of RTI applications by the Brahmbhatts in a calendar year to six. It mandated that while filing an RTI application, the three will have to give an undertaking of the number of RTI applications by them in that year and if the undertaking is not there, or the number crosses six, it has to be disposed of.
.JPG)
.JPG)
