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

No immunity from prosecution u/s 276B merely because TDS was deposited belatedly

Assessee cannot be granted immunity from prosecution u/s 276B for late deposit of TDS merely because ultimately TDS was deposited…

4 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Section 44C applies to exclusive expenditure by head office by non resident assessee – SC

Section 44C applies to exclusive expenditure on head office for the Indian branches incurred by non resident assessee’s. In a…

5 hours ago
  • Insurance

MV Act Compensation to parents of child died is at different footing than disabled child

Compensation under motor vehicle Act to parents of child died attract a less multiplier than from that of a claim…

6 hours ago
  • GST

Extension of time limit for furnishing GSTR 3B under Delhi GST Act 2017

Extension of time limit for furnishing GSTR 3B under Delhi GST Act 2017 Department of Trade and Taxes(Policy and Research…

12 hours ago
  • ICAI

Audit Fee to be received only by digital modes/banking channels -ICAI revises Ethics

Acceptance of Audit Fee only through digital modes or banking channels from 01.04.2026 – ICAI revises Code of Ethics  In…

19 hours ago
  • Service Tax

Demand set aside as assessee for period covered had discharged tax liability under SVLDRS

High Court sets aside demand notices in respect of a period, for which the assessee had discharged tax liability under…

1 day ago