Repeated RTI Applications are against the spirit of the RTI Act

The appellant raised queries like whether a Disciplinary Authority direct the charged official to submit a written statement of defence in a case of unauthorized absence from duties if there is no statement of misconduct or misbehavior under Rule 9 of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. He demanded to provide the relevant guidelines. Before the CIC, he submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to him. The CIC noted that more than 70 cases of the same Appellant against same/related Public Authority under Ministry of Railways have already been heard and disposed of by different benches while eleven second appeals of the Appellant were listed for hearing on the same day. The CIC observed that Appellant apparently wants to pressurize the Public Authority rather than actual interest in getting the information denied to him, if any. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizen. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The CIC stated that the Appellant is harbouring a grievance and is not seeking access to information as envisaged under the RTI Act. Pointing out the powers under the RTI Act, the CIC cautioned the Appellant to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner.

Comments

There have been many cases of repetitive RTI applications and such litigation is counter-productive to the RTI regime. An applicant should be judicious in the use of RTI Act and it should be used to obtain information rather than as a tool to harass the Public Authority.

Citation: Shankar Poddar v. M/o Railways, Railway Board, CIC/MORLY/A/2023/106645; Date of Decision : 28-03-2024