Central Information Commission

Repetitive use of RTI an abuse. Appeal can be rejected. Citizen has no Right to Repeat and it shall be ground of refusal – CIC

Repetitive use of RTI an abuse. Appeal can be rejected. Citizen has no Right to Repeat and repetition shall be ground of refusal – CIC Decision 

CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION

Satarkta Bhawan, G.P.O. Complex,
Block A. INA, New Delhi 110023

No. CVC/RTI/MISC/16/006
Dated: 10/03/2017

Circular No. 03/03/2017

Subject: Seeking similar information  through repeated RTI Applications-Central Information Commission’s decision regarding.

The attention of the CVOs concerned is drawn to the Central Information Commission’s decision dated 25.06.2014 in case No. CIC/AD/N2013/001326-SA in the case of Shri Ramesh Chand Jain Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, GNCTD, Delhi, in which the issue of seeking information by the RTI Applicants through repetitive Applications on similar issues/subject has been considered and decided by the Central Information Commission.

2. The Central Information Commission, in its decision, had observed that:-

“The Commission noticed that several applicants seek some information from one wing of the public  authority, and based on the responses file  a bunch of RTI questions from  the same or other wings of same public authority, or from other authority. This will have a continuous harassing effect on the public authority. As the P!Os go on answering,  more  and  more questions are generated out of the same and in the same proportion the number of repeated first  appeals and second appeals will be growing.

3. The Commission after considering various aspects of the issue and the provisions of acts of similar nature in other countries, and also the decisions of earlier Information Commissioners has concluded that:-

“(i)  Even a single repetition of RTf  application would demand the valuable time of the public authority, first appellate authority and if it also reaches second appeal,  that  of  the  Commission,  which  time  could  have been  spent  to  hear another appeal or answer another application or perform other public  duty.

(ii) Every  repetition  ol RTI  application  which  was  earlier  responded  will  he  an obstruction to flow  o/information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act.”

4. The Central Information Commission, vide  its decision CIC/AD/A/2013/00 1326- SA dated 25.06.2014 has thus, decided that:-

“(i)  No scope of repeating under RTI Act.
(ii) Citizen has no Right to Repeat.
(iii) Repetition shall be ground of refusal
(iv) Appeals can be rejected”

5. The CVOs may bring the above quoted decision of Central Information Commission to the notice of all the CPIOs/Appellate Authorities of their organizations, who may consider the Central Information Commission’s decision, while  deciding  about  the  RTI  Applications seeking similar information through repeated RTI The complete decision of Central Information Commission, in case No. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA, in the case of Shri Ramesh Chand Jain Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, GNCTD, Delhi is available  on  its website, vvww.cic.gov.in, in downloadable  form and can be access from there.

(Rajiv Verma)
Under Secretary & Nodal  PIO

ABCAUS Notes:

The CIC in the case of Shri Ramesh Chand Jain regarded it as a case of mis­use of RTI Act. In this elaborate decision, dealing with the case where the  respondent had filed around 130 RTI applications, mostly on the similar subject, it was regarded as abuse of RTI Act and held that repetition shall be a ground of refusal of information.

The major obervations made in the above decision are as under:

Repetitive use of RTI an ABUSE

RTI not a rendezvous of disgruntled element

Positive impact of RTI

Placing RTI abusers information in public domain

No scope for repeating under RTI Act

Commission shall record ABUSE, admonish ABUSER

Waste of public time and obstructing RTI

Repetition shall be ground of refusal

Appeals can be rejected

Download CIC Decidion in R C Jain Case Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Deprecation allowable u/s 11(6) if capital expenditure not claimed as application of income

Assessee entitled to claim deprecation u/s 11(6) if corresponding capital expenditure was not claimed as application of income - ITAT…

13 hours ago
  • Income Tax

CBDT cautions CAs issuing certificates in Form 15CB/Form146 to exercise due care & diligence

Chartered Accountants issuing certificates in Form 15CB/Form146 are expected to exercise due care, diligence and professional judgment – CBDT CBDT…

15 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Section 292C carry no presumption of correctness of seized documents contents against third party

Section 292C of the Income Tax Act 1961 indeed carries presumption of correctness of such seized documents contents but only…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) for filing revised return to avail benefits u/s 44ADA

PCIT directed to consider condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) in filing revised return to availing benefits of section 44ADA In…

3 days ago
  • arbitration

Whether condition of pre-deposit prior to reference to Arbitration is arbitrary & violative of right to sue?

Whether condition of pre-deposit prior to reference to Arbitration is arbitrary and violative of the right to sue – Division…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

FAQs on Foreign Assets of Small Taxpayers Disclosure Scheme and Rule 2026

Frequently asked Questions on Foreign Assets of Small Taxpayers Disclosure Scheme and Rule 2026.  CBDT has released a FAQs on…

5 days ago