Times of India: Bengaluru: Friday, 5th October
2025.
A person seeking information under the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act cannot be said to be a consumer, and the jurisdiction of consumer fora is barred, according to the district consumer disputes redressal commission (Bangalore Urban).
The commission ruled the
RTI Act provides a complete remedy and dismissed a complaint by a
Bengaluru-based individual frustrated by delay in receiving information. He
approached the consumer forum, seeking Rs 1 lakh per day compensation and
action against officials.
A retired joint director of the rural development and panchayat raj department, Tamil Nadu, approached the consumer commission with a series of demands linked to his RTI applications. Retired in March 2016, Pandian A alleged a charge memo issued in July 1996 was kept pending for 28 years with mala fide intent. Though the Madras high court, Madurai bench, struck it down as "illegal" in 2016, he claimed the department still imposed a pension cut of Rs 1,000 per month for a year in Aug 2024, in violation of the court's order.
Prior to filing the consumer complaint, he sent a legal notice to the additional chief secretary through post, which was received but went unanswered. Subsequently, to obtain documents needed for judicial proceedings, he submitted an RTI application on Nov 1, 2024, which was delivered on Nov 2, 2024, and filed a first appeal on Nov 8, 2024, which was received on Nov 11, 2024. Both the requests reportedly went unaddressed.
He argued the refusal of information by the public information officer (PIO), first appellate authority, and inaction of the additional chief secretary amounted to "deficiency in service" and negligence under consumer law. In Dec 2024, he lodged a complaint under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act with the Tamil Nadu state chief information commissioner, but no response was received.
He claimed when the govt dropped the malicious disciplinary proceedings in April 2025, his request for compensation was suppressed. Apart from personal relief, he sought action against officials allegedly involved in a Rs 500-crore LED light procurement scandal.
After reviewing the submissions, the commission noted the complainant sought information to pursue judicial remedies, but received no response from the officials. "The RTI Act is a complete code. A person seeking information cannot be considered a consumer vis-à-vis the public authority or PIO/CPIO, and consumer forums' jurisdiction is barred under Section 23 of the RTI Act," the commission noted.
Highlighting the principle of exclusive remedies under the RTI Act, the commission said no other tribunal, including consumer fora, could take up such matters. The complainant could have pursued the appeal process all the way to the high court.
Consequently, the consumer commission dismissed the complaint, concluding the forum initially held that it had the jurisdiction to hear the complaint but dismissed it, finding no deficiency in the services rendered to the complainant, also saying it lacked jurisdiction to entertain complaints of this nature, dismissing the complainant's appeal while allowing the appeal filed by the opposite parties.
A person seeking information under the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act cannot be said to be a consumer, and the jurisdiction of consumer fora is barred, according to the district consumer disputes redressal commission (Bangalore Urban).
A retired joint director of the rural development and panchayat raj department, Tamil Nadu, approached the consumer commission with a series of demands linked to his RTI applications. Retired in March 2016, Pandian A alleged a charge memo issued in July 1996 was kept pending for 28 years with mala fide intent. Though the Madras high court, Madurai bench, struck it down as "illegal" in 2016, he claimed the department still imposed a pension cut of Rs 1,000 per month for a year in Aug 2024, in violation of the court's order.
Prior to filing the consumer complaint, he sent a legal notice to the additional chief secretary through post, which was received but went unanswered. Subsequently, to obtain documents needed for judicial proceedings, he submitted an RTI application on Nov 1, 2024, which was delivered on Nov 2, 2024, and filed a first appeal on Nov 8, 2024, which was received on Nov 11, 2024. Both the requests reportedly went unaddressed.
He argued the refusal of information by the public information officer (PIO), first appellate authority, and inaction of the additional chief secretary amounted to "deficiency in service" and negligence under consumer law. In Dec 2024, he lodged a complaint under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act with the Tamil Nadu state chief information commissioner, but no response was received.
He claimed when the govt dropped the malicious disciplinary proceedings in April 2025, his request for compensation was suppressed. Apart from personal relief, he sought action against officials allegedly involved in a Rs 500-crore LED light procurement scandal.
After reviewing the submissions, the commission noted the complainant sought information to pursue judicial remedies, but received no response from the officials. "The RTI Act is a complete code. A person seeking information cannot be considered a consumer vis-à-vis the public authority or PIO/CPIO, and consumer forums' jurisdiction is barred under Section 23 of the RTI Act," the commission noted.
Highlighting the principle of exclusive remedies under the RTI Act, the commission said no other tribunal, including consumer fora, could take up such matters. The complainant could have pursued the appeal process all the way to the high court.
Consequently, the consumer commission dismissed the complaint, concluding the forum initially held that it had the jurisdiction to hear the complaint but dismissed it, finding no deficiency in the services rendered to the complainant, also saying it lacked jurisdiction to entertain complaints of this nature, dismissing the complainant's appeal while allowing the appeal filed by the opposite parties.
.JPG)
.JPG)
