Times of India: Pune: Tuesday, 26 August 2025.
State chief information
commissioner (CIC) Rahul Pande has directed all seven information commissioners
to keep a close watch on applicants who repeatedly file thousands of RTI
complaints and second appeals on the same issue, often with little or no public
interest involved. Such petitions clog the system and delay the disposal of
genuine cases, Pande told TOI on Monday.
Recently, applicants from Pune, Sambhajinagar, and Mumbai were found to have filed more than 1,000 applications on a single issue with minor changes, apparently to pressure public authorities. "There is a growing problem of a handful of individuals filing thousands of RTIs that are clogging the system and this needs urgent attention. RTI is a democratic right, but it should not become the selective privilege of a few. Excessive and repetitive filings by individuals at certain benches skew the pendency data," Pande said.
Pande has asked the commissioners to identify such individuals, give them a hearing, and club or dismiss extra petitions. In one case, more than 1,000 applications landed at a single bench. "I had to club over 800 petitions myself, conduct a hearing, and dismiss the rest. I questioned the applicants about the intention behind the appeals," an information commissioner said.
Another bench official said that several petitions were filed out of personal vendetta, often targeting one department after another.
The concern over misuse of RTI was also echoed recently by Bombay high court, which cited frivolous applications, including one seeking the number of samosas served daily in a govt office. Hearing a PIL petitiion over delays in disposing of second appeals, the court said that the RTI Act's beneficial purpose was being undermined.
CIC Pande said the court's view is clear: if misuse is not appropriately dealt with, public faith in this "sunshine law" will erode.
"A beneficial statute when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law, especially when applicants file thousands of appeals at one go," another official said.
To address such instances, the commissioners have been asked to ensure maximum proactive disclosure under section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act so that information is available in the public domain without repeated demands.
Data shared by some benches shows how individual applicants have burdened the system Pune (2,955 appeals), Sambhajinagar (1,600), Mumbai (1,800), and Nashik (800).
Commissioners have strongly objected to such repetitive appeals, most of them centred on the same issue. Another commissioner said such practices go against the very spirit of the RTI Act. "The complainant seems to have grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional," he said.
However, RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar, who runs the weekly RTI Katta, said the state information commission should introspect before imposing restrictions. "The larger question is whether in the last 20 years the commission took any action against officials who failed to implement section 4 of the RTI Act. Proactive disclosure is mandated so that citizens need not file applications at all, yet this is not implemented," he said.
Kumbhar further said that the law also requires public information officers to help citizens draft applications if needed, but "has anyone seen even one officer do this?" He claimed while applicants face restrictions, the commission routinely ignores systematic violations by authorities. "Can such a body truly be called an impartial information commission?" he asked.
Recently, applicants from Pune, Sambhajinagar, and Mumbai were found to have filed more than 1,000 applications on a single issue with minor changes, apparently to pressure public authorities. "There is a growing problem of a handful of individuals filing thousands of RTIs that are clogging the system and this needs urgent attention. RTI is a democratic right, but it should not become the selective privilege of a few. Excessive and repetitive filings by individuals at certain benches skew the pendency data," Pande said.
Pande has asked the commissioners to identify such individuals, give them a hearing, and club or dismiss extra petitions. In one case, more than 1,000 applications landed at a single bench. "I had to club over 800 petitions myself, conduct a hearing, and dismiss the rest. I questioned the applicants about the intention behind the appeals," an information commissioner said.
Another bench official said that several petitions were filed out of personal vendetta, often targeting one department after another.
The concern over misuse of RTI was also echoed recently by Bombay high court, which cited frivolous applications, including one seeking the number of samosas served daily in a govt office. Hearing a PIL petitiion over delays in disposing of second appeals, the court said that the RTI Act's beneficial purpose was being undermined.
CIC Pande said the court's view is clear: if misuse is not appropriately dealt with, public faith in this "sunshine law" will erode.
"A beneficial statute when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law, especially when applicants file thousands of appeals at one go," another official said.
To address such instances, the commissioners have been asked to ensure maximum proactive disclosure under section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act so that information is available in the public domain without repeated demands.
Data shared by some benches shows how individual applicants have burdened the system Pune (2,955 appeals), Sambhajinagar (1,600), Mumbai (1,800), and Nashik (800).
Commissioners have strongly objected to such repetitive appeals, most of them centred on the same issue. Another commissioner said such practices go against the very spirit of the RTI Act. "The complainant seems to have grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional," he said.
However, RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar, who runs the weekly RTI Katta, said the state information commission should introspect before imposing restrictions. "The larger question is whether in the last 20 years the commission took any action against officials who failed to implement section 4 of the RTI Act. Proactive disclosure is mandated so that citizens need not file applications at all, yet this is not implemented," he said.
Kumbhar further said that the law also requires public information officers to help citizens draft applications if needed, but "has anyone seen even one officer do this?" He claimed while applicants face restrictions, the commission routinely ignores systematic violations by authorities. "Can such a body truly be called an impartial information commission?" he asked.
.JPG)
.JPG)
