Central Information Commission
Ravi vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 30 June, 2022
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/605638 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/607513
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/605713 CIC/NHRCM/A/2021/602295
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/605631 CIC/NHRCM/A/2021/606811
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/605640 CIC/NHRCM/A/2021/606806
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/604405 CIC/NHRCM/A/2021/606807
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/604234 CIC/ECOMM/A/2021/606663
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/604232 CIC/ECOMM/A/2021/606681
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/607514 CIC/PRSEC/A/2021/602284
CIC/MHOME/A/2021/602271
Shri Ravi ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
1. Delhi Police
2. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital
3. Patiala House Court, New Delhi
4. Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied
Sciences, New Delhi
5. ITC Maurya Hotel, Chanakyapuri, New
Delhi
6. President Secretariat
7. M/o Home Affairs
8. National Investigation Agency
9. Cabinet Secretariat
10. Election Commission of India
11. National Human Rights Commission
Date of Hearing : 30.06.2022
Date of Decision : 30.06.2022
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since the Appellant is the same in all the above mentioned cases they are
clubbed together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
Page 1 of 32
No. on received on
605638 13.12.2020 13.01
13.01.2021 13.01.2021 17.02.2021 19.02.2021
605713 13.12.2020 11.01
11.01.2021 12.01.2021 11.02.2021 19.02.2021
605631 18.12.2020 13.01
13.01.2021 18.01.2021 11.02.2021 19.02.2021
605640 13.12.2020 13.01
13.01.2021 13.01.2021 11.02.2021 19.02.2021
604405 09.12.2020 08
08.01.2021 08.01.2021 05.02.2021 11.02.2021
604234 07.12.2020 07.01
07.01.2021 07.01.2021 03.02.2021 10.02.2021
604232 07.12.2020 07.01
07.01.2021 07.01.2021 03.02.2021 10.02.2021
607514 24.01.2021 16.02
16.02.2021 19.02.2021 02.03.2021 03.03.2021
607513 24.01.2021 16.02.2021 19.02.2021 02.03.2021 03.03.2021
602295 10.12.2020 14.12.2020 15.12.2020 04.01.2021 28.01.2021
606811 10.12.2020 14.12.2020 15.12.2020 04.01.2021 26.02.2021
606806 14.12.2020 23.12.2020 24.12.2020 27.01.2021 26.02.2021
606807 16.12.2020 30.12.2020 31.12.2020 22.01.2021 26.02.2021
606663 12.01.2021 29.01.2021 29.01.2021 25.02.2021 25.02.2021
606681 12.01.2021 29.01.2021 29.01.2021 25.02.2021 25.02.2021
602284 12.11.2020 03.12.2020 04.12.2020 06.01.2021 28.01.2021
602271 12.11.2020 17.11.2020 07.12.2020 05.01.2021 28.01.2021
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/DEPOL CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/605638 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 13.12.2020 13.12 seeking information formation on the following points:-
The PIO/Addl. DCP, New Delhi District, Delhi Police vide letter dated 13.01.2021 replied as under:-Page 2 of 32
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant Appella filed a First Appeal dated 13.01.2021.. The FAA/ FAA/DCP, New Delhi District, Delhi Police vide order dated 17.02.2021 disposed off the appeal. However, the order of the FAA is not attached with the Second Appeal.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied,, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission ion has been received from the PIO and Addl DCP-I, DCP New Delhi District, Delhi Police vide letter dated 17.06.2022 wherein while reiterating the replies available on record it was stated that the Appellant had filed 40 RTI applications/ Appeals between 07.12 07.12.2020 .2020 to 27.07.2021 in the same matter.
Inspection of records was offered to the Complainant alongwith inspection of CCTV footage from the police station which was not availed off by the Appellant.
(2) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/605713 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 13.12.2020 13.12 seeking information on the following points:-
Page 3 of 32The PIO/Addl. DCP, New Delhi District, Delhi Police vide letter dated 11.01.2021 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant Appella filed a First Appeal dated 12.01.2021.. The FAA/DCP, New Delhi District, Delhi Police vide order dated 11.02.2021 stated as under:
under:-Page 4 of 32
Aggrieved and dissatisfied,, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(3) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/ CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/605631 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 18.12.2020 18.12 seeking information on the following points:-
The CPIO/Addl. DCP, New Delhi District, vide letter dated 13.01.2021 replied as under:-Page 5 of 32
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant Appella filed a First Appeal dated 18.01.2021.. The FAA/DCP, New Delhi District, vide order dated 11.02.2021 stated as under:
under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied,, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission has been received from the PIO and Addl Addl. DCP-I, DCP New Delhi District, Delhi Police vide letter dated 17.06.2022 wherein while reiterating the replies available on record it was stated that the Appellant had filed 40 RTI applications/ Appeals between 07.12.2020 to 27.07.2021 in the same matter. Inspection pection of records was offered to the Complainant alongwith inspection of CCTV footage from the police station which was not availed off by the Appellant.
A written submission was also received from the Nodal CPIO and CM (NFSG), (NFSG) Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital (RTI Cell) vide letter dated 20.06.2022 wherein it was stated that information was provided to the Appellant 09.02.2021 which was received back with the comment "No such person on the address".
(4) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/ CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/605640 The Appellant filed an o online RTI application dated 13.12.2020 13.12 seeking information on the following points:-Page 6 of 32
The CPIO/Addl. DCP, New Delhi District, vide letter dated 13.01.2021 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant Appella filed a First Appeal dated 13.01.2021.. The FAA/DCP, New Delhi District, vide order dated 11.02.2021 stated as under:
under:-Page 7 of 32
Aggrieved and dissatisfied,, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission was also received from the Nodal CPIO and CM (NFSG), Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital (RTI Cell) vide letter dated 20.06.2022 wherein it was stated that information was provided to the Appellant 09.02.2021 which was received back with the comment "No such person on the address".
(5) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/ CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/604405 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 09.12 .12.2021 seeking information on the following points:-
The PIO/Addl. DCP, New Delhi District, Delhi Police vide letter dated 08.01.2021 08 replied as under:-Page 8 of 32
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.01.2021.. The FAA/DCP, New Delhi District, Delhi Police vide order dated 05.02.2021 .2021 stated as under:
under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied,, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission was also received from the Nodal CPIO and CM (NFSG), Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital (RTI Cell) vide letter dated 20.06.2022 wherein it was stated thatt information was provided to the Appellant 09.02.2021 which was received back with the comment "No such person on the address".
A written submission was also received from the PIO, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi dated 17.06.2022 whe wherein rein it was stated that the RTI application was replied vide letter dated 01.02.2021. The first appeal was wa also decided by the Ld ADJ-04, 04, NDD, Patiala House Courts vide order dated 18.11.2021 wherein the copies of proceedings of the presiding officer dated 21.11.2020 were provided alongwith the copies of the duty roster as notified by the Ld CMM, NDD. The above mentioned information was provided to the Appellant on 02.12.2021. The Appellant has not expressed any specific point of dissatisfaction with the replies provided by them and had filed multiple RTI applications on the same subject.
A written submission was also received from the Chief Security Officer, ITC Maurya Hotel vide letter dated 09.06.2022 wherein it was stated that a reply was given to on 11.06.2021 wherein it was mentioned that the they have a provision for storing CCTV footage for a period of 30 days of recording o only.
A written submission was also received from the PIO and Jt Director (Admin), Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS), New Delhi vide letter dated 20.06.2022 which has been taken on record.
Page 9 of 32(6) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/ CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/604234 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 07.12.2020 07.12 seeking information on the following points:-
The PIO/Addl. DCP, New Delhi District District, Delhi Police vide letter dated 07.01.2021 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant Appella filed a First Appeal dated 07.01.2021. The FAA/DCP, New Delhi District, Delhi Police vide order dated 03.02.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.Page 10 of 32
Aggrieved and dissatisfied,, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission was also received from the PIO, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi dated 17.06.2022 wherein it was stated that the RTI application was replied vide letter dated 16.01 16.01.2021.
.2021. The first appeal was wa also decided by the Ld ADJ-04, 04, NDD, Patiala House Courts vide order dated 18.11.2021 wherein the copies of proceedings of the presiding officer dated 21.11.2020 were provided alongwith the copies of the duty roster as notified by the Ld CMM, NDD. The above mentioned informatiinformation on was provided to the Appellant on 02.12.2021. The Appellant has not expressed any specific point of dissatisfaction with the replies provided by them and had filed multiple RTI applications on the same subject subject.
(7) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/ CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/604232 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 07.12.2021 seeking information on the following:
following:-
The PIO/Addl. DCP, New Delhi District District, Delhi Police vide letter dated 07.01.2021 replied as under:-Page 11 of 32
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant Appella filed a First Appeal dated 07.01.2021.. The FAA/ FAA/DCP, New Delhi District, Delhi Police vide order dated 03.02.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied,, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission was also received from the PIO, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi dated 17.06.2022 wherein it was stated that the RTI application was replied vide letter dated 16.01 16.01.2021.
.2021. The first appeal was wa also decided by the Ld ADJ-04, 04, NDD, Patiala House Courts vide order dated 18.11.2021 wherein the copies of proceedings of the presiding officer dated 21.11.2020 were provided alongwith the copies of the duty roster as notified by the Ld CMM, NDD. The abov above e mentioned information was provided to the Appellant on 02.12.2021. The Appellant has not expressed any specific point of dissatisfaction with the replies provided by them and had filed multiple RTI applications on the same subject subject.
(8) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/ CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/607514 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 24.01.2021 seeking information on the following points:-
Page 12 of 32The CPIO/ Addl. Commissioner of Police Police, Delhi Police Hqrs, Delhi Police vide letter dated 16.02.2021 replied as under:
under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant Appella filed a First Appeal dated 19.02.2021.. The FAA/ FAA/Joint Commissioner of Police, Police Police Headquarters, Delhi Police vide order dated 02.03.2021 stated as under:-
under:Page 13 of 32
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission has been received from the PIO and Addl. DCP-I, New Delhi District, Delhi Police vide letter dated 17.06.2022 wherein while reiterating the replies available on record it was stated that the Appellant had filed 40 RTI applications/ Appeals between 07.12.2020 to 27.07.2021 in the same matter. Inspection of records was offered to the Complainant alongwith inspection of CCTV footage from the police station which was not availed off by the Appellant.
A written submission was also received from the PIO cum DCP, HQ-II, Delhi Police vide letter dated 20.06.2022 wherein it was stated that the order of the FAA was complied with vide letter dated 19.03.2021 and the RTI application was forwarded to the PIO, North District.
A written submission was also received from the APIO cum Asst Commissioner of Police, North District vide letter dated 22.06.2022 which has been taken on record.
(9) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/607513 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 24.01.2021 seeking information on the following points:-Page 14 of 32
The PIO/Addl. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Hqrs, vide letter dated 16.02.2021 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.02.2021. The FAA/Joint Commissioner of Police, Police Hqrs, vide order dated 02.03.2021 stated as under:-Page 15 of 32
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission has been received from the PIO and Addl. DCP-I, New Delhi District, Delhi Police vide letter dated 17.06.2022 wherein while reiterating the replies available on record it was stated that the Appellant had filed 40 RTI applications/ Appeals between 07.12.2020 to 27.07.2021 in the same matter. Inspection of records was offered to the Complainant alongwith inspection of CCTV footage from the police station which was not availed off by the Appellant.
A written submission was also received from the PIO cum DCP, HQ-II, Delhi Police vide letter dated 20.06.2022 wherein it was stated that the order of the FAA was complied with vide letter dated 19.03.2021 and the RTI application was forwarded to the PIO, North District.
(10) CIC/NHRCM/A/2021/602295
(11) CIC/NHRCM/A/2021/606811
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 10.12.2020 seeking information on the following points:-Page 16 of 32
The PIO, National Human Rights Commission, vide letter dated 14.12.2020 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.12.2020. The FAA, National Human Rights Commission, Law Division, vide order dated 04.01.2021 stated as under:
under:-Page 17 of 32
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission has been received from the Consultant Law, National Human Rights Commission vide letter dated 23.06.2022 wherein it was stated that it appears that the Appellant who claims to be a whistleblower has a grievance against investigating agencies viz- RAW, NIA, IB and Delhi Police, etc who had been allegedly conducting surveillance on him and tapping his phone at the behest of the M/o Home Affairs. He has appealed against the alleged inaction by the NHRC particularly in not issuing notices to the authorities concerned on his complaints. The appeal does not bring forth anything against the CPIO but are mere averments without any supporting facts that information furnished is misleading.
(12) CIC/NHRCM/A/2021/606806 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 14.12.2020 seeking information on the following points:-Page 18 of 32
The PIO, National Human Rights Commission, vide letter dated 23.12.2020 replied as under:-Page 19 of 32
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.12.2020. The FAA, National Human Rights Commission, Law Division, vide order dated 27.01.2021 stated as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission has been received from the Consultant Law, National Human Rights Commission vide letter dated 23.06.2022 wherein it was stated that the Appellant has perhaps appealed against the NHRC for alleged inaction in the matter not issuing notices to the accused agencies, not verifying the CCTV Page 20 of 32 footage etc. The appeal does not bring forth anything thing against the CPIO but mere averments without any supporting facts that information furnished is misleading.
(13) CIC/NHRCM/A/2021/606807 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 16.12.2020 seeking information on the following points:
points:-
The PIO/Deputy Registrar, National Human Rights Commission, vide letter dated 30.12.2020 replied as under:
under:-
Dissatisfied with the response re received ceived from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.12.2020. The FAA, National Human Rights Commission, Law Division, vide order dated 22.01.2021 stated as under:
under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied,, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.Page 21 of 32
A written submission sion has been received from the PIO cum Assistant Registrar (Law), NHRC vide letter dated 17.06.2022 wherein it was stated that complete information was provided by the concerned PIO on the basis of the documents available. The Appellant has also not produced on record before the Commission Commis as to how the information provided by the CPIO was false and misleading.
(14) CIC/ECOMM/A/2021/606663 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.01.2021 seeking information on the following:-Page 22 of 32
The PIO, Election Commission of India, vide letter dated 29.01.2021 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.01.2021. The FAA/Senior Principal Secretary, Election Commission of India, vide order dated 25.02.2021 upheld the rep reply ly of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied,, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(15) CIC/ECOMM/A/2021/606681 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.01.2021 seeking information on the following:-Page 23 of 32
ETC.
The PIO, Election Commission of India, vide letter dated 29.01.2021 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.01.2021. The FAA/Senior Principal Secretary, Election Commission of India, vide order dated 25.02.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.Page 24 of 32
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(16) CIC/PRSEC/A/2021/602284 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.11.2020 seeking information on the following:-
The PIO/Deputy Secretary, President's Secretariat, vide letter dated 03.12.2020 replied as under:-Page 25 of 32
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.12.2020. The FAA/Joint Secretary, President's Secretariat, vide order dated 06.01.2021 stated as under:
under:-Page 26 of 32
Aggrieved and dissatisfied,, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission was recei received ved from the CPIO cum Dy Secretary, President's Secretariat vide letter dated 23.06.2022 wherein it was stated that point wise response was already provided to the Appellant and his application was also transferred to the M/o Home Affairs. The Appellant ha has s a tendency of writing incoherent, vague petitions/ RTI applications to higher offices like President Secretariat and in the period from 2019 2019-2021 2021 he had filed around 44 RTI applications and hundreds of petitions which contained indecent remarks against the he functionaries of the government.
(17) CIC/MHOME/A/2021/602271 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.11.2020 seeking information on the following:-
The PIO/Director, Ministry of Home Affairs, vide letter dated 17.11.2020 stated that reply has already been sent to appellant by speed post dated 17.11.2020.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.12.2020. The FAA/Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, vide order dated 05.01.2021 stat stated as under:-Page 27 of 32
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submissions have been received from the CPIO and Director (L&O), IS-III Desk, M/o Home Affairs vide letter dated 22.06.2022; the CPIO and Asst IG (Policy) NIA dated 23.06.2022; the CPIO and US, Cabinet Secretariat vide letter dated 21.06.2022 and CPIO and Dy Secretary (CR-II), CTCR Division, M/o Home Affairs vide letter dated 16.06.2022 and the same have been taken on record.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation. The notice of hearing sent to the Appellant was returned undelivered with the comment "Refused" after which the notices were also sent to him on his email id.
The Respondents represented by Smt Suma Madda, ACP, Chanakyapuri, Delhi Police; Shri Sanjeev Verma, SHO, Chanakyapuri, Delhi Police; Smt Shakuntala Uniyal, ASI, Chanakyapuri, Delhi Police; Shri Anoop Kumar, SI, Chanakyapuri, Delhi Police; Shri Heera Lal, SI, Police HQ, Delhi Police; Shri Anil Kumar, ACP, North District HQ, Delhi Police; Shri Ramesh, Inspector, North District HQ, Delhi Police; Shri Chander Shekhar, ASI RTI Cell, North District HQ; Shri Prashant, HC, Vigilance Unit, Delhi Police; Shri Chandra Singh Rawat, PIO, Patiala House Court, New Delhi; Ms Chakshu Thakral, Advocate representing ITC Maurya, Chanakyapuri; Dr Pawan Kumar, CPIO, RML Hospital, New Delhi; Col Maneesh Puri, PIO and JD (Admin), IHBAS, New Delhi Dr Amit Khanna, Assistant Professor Psychiatry, IHBAS, New Delhi; Shri Vinod Sharma, APIO, IHBAS, New Delhi; Shri Debindra Kundra, Asst Registrar (Law), NHRC; Shri Khaleel Ahmed, Consultant (Law), NHRC; Shri Ashutosh M US, Election Commission of India and Shri L K Goswami, SO, UT Division, M/o Home Affairs, New Delhi participated in the hearing through video conference.
Explaining the background of the matter, Smt. Madda stated that the issue pertained to an incident dated 21.11.2020 when the Appellant who also works in the Election Commission of India visited the ITC Maurya Hotel. At the time of entering the hotel premises, the security personnel of the hotel requested the Appellant to confirm his Covid status through the Aarogya Setu App. The Appellant refused to do so and began abusing and threatening the security Page 28 of 32 personnel of the hotel. Instead of complying with the hotel rules, the Appellant called the Police Control Room (PCR) on 100 number. After the concerned SI visited the hotel premises, the Appellant without revealing his identity complained about the action of the hotel staff and requested the SI to take him to the police station to file an FIR. The SI took him and the hotel staff to Chanakyapuri PS where he threatened to teach a lesson to the police officials; banged his head against a table and physically abused the police officials. Looking at the conduct of the Appellant, his medical examination was recommended by the SHO, Chanakyapuri which was carried out at the RML Hospital. The Appellant did not reveal his identity in the hospital as well and verbally abused the doctors and staff of the hospital. Subsequently his medical examination was done vide MLC No E 212716/20. During the medical examination as well the Appellant refused to give his fingerprints or to take the medication/ injection. The doctor present at the RML Hospital recommended that the Appellant gets examined by the Psychiatry Department. Thus, he was referred to IHBAS, New Delhi for further examination. The Appellant again refused to disclose his identity or details of his family members at the time of his examination at the IHBAS, New Delhi. On searching the belongings of the Appellant his identity was revealed and it was discovered that he works in the Election Commission of India. The identity of the Appellant was confirmed from the Beat official of Morris Nagar PS and it was revealed that the Appellant is unmarried and lives alone. Thus, a Kalandra u/s 23 (1) (b) of the Mental Health Act was filed before Ld MM, Patiala House Court since based on his behaviour and activities, the Appellant could be a threat to society. Smt Madda also added that the Appellant has filed more than 40 applications for the period from 07.12.2020 to 27.07.2021 in the same matter.
Inspection of records was offered to him alongwith inspection of CCTV footage from the police station which was not availed of by the Appellant.
Shri Heera Lal, SI, Police HQ, Delhi Police; Shri Prashant, HC, Vigilance Unit, Delhi Police and Shri L. K. Goswami, SO, UT Division, M/o Home Affairs stated that the RTI applications with them actually pertained to the jurisdiction of the North District, Delhi Police hence the applications were transferred to the North District u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act. Shri Anil Kumar, ACP, North District, Delhi Police stated that reply to the relevant point of the RTI application dated 24.01.2021 pertaining to them (i.e., point no 10) was provided to the Appellant on 19.04.2021 wherein the copy of the action taken report on Appellant's complaint containing 12 pages was provided.
Ms Chakshu Thakral and Shri Chandra Singh Rawat stated that the CCTV footage at ITC Mauyra and at the Patiala House Courts respectively were not preserved for a period beyond 30 days and were destroyed. In addition, Shri Chandra Singh Rawat stated that the copy of the duty roster of the CMM, Patiala House Court for the month of November 2020 and the proceedings in Appellant's case dated 21.11.2020 was also provided by them. In the order dated 21.11.2020 SI Kuldeep Yadav was directed to trace the whereabouts of patient Ravi and also try to trace his family members and also to admit Shri Ravi to IHBAS for treatment. The Director IHBAS was also directed to admit the patient Shri Ravi and give him proper treatment and file a detailed report before the concerned court on 02.12.2020.
Page 29 of 32Col Maneesh Puri stated that the order of the Ld MM, Patiala House Courts was complied with by IHBAS, New Delhi and details of the same were also conveyed to the Appellant vide RTI reply dated 11.02.2021 wherein it was mentioned that the in patient admission of the Appellant was done at IHBAS on 21.11.2020 in compliance with the Court order u/s 102 (1) (b) of the Medical Healthcare Act, 2017. The admission was facilitated by IO Sh Kuldeep Yadav. The patient was diagnosed with Psychiatric illness at IHBAS and standard care and psychiatric treatment was provided to him. Following discharge, the patient was handed over to Shri Abhishek (his brother) on 28.11.2020. In addition, Col Puri apprised the Commission about the receipt of an email yesterday from the Appellant containing abusive and unparliamentary language, a copy of which was handed over to Shri Ashutosh M US, Election Commission of India during the hearing.
Shri Debindra Kundra, Asst Registrar (Law), NHRC also flagged the receipt of a similar email from the Appellant containing the most vulgar usage of language against the PIO as well as the Hon'ble PM of our country. He pleaded for condemning the use of such language and for initiating disciplinary action against the Appellant for this act and for misusing the RTI Act for his vested interest. He also stated that all the RTI applications were replied to by the NHRC in accordance with the statutory requirements. The Appellant has mainly appealed against the alleged inaction of the NHRC. The appeals do not bring anything against the CPIO but mere averments without any supporting facts that information furnished is misleading.
Shri Ashutosh M stated that the Appellant was behaving in an irrational, unstable and incoherent manner that required medical attention hence a memorandum dated 04.08.2020 was issued to him to get his medical examination done at RML Hospital, Delhi which he has not obeyed till date. Subsequently, information about the incident at ITC Maurya Hotel was given to them by SI Kuldeep Singh, Chanakyapuri PS on 23.11.2020. Accordingly, on 07.01.2021 a memorandum was issued to the Appellant to submit his medical examination report that was conducted by IHBAS immediately within 3 days which he did not comply with. Thereafter, they received the medical examination report from IHBAS, Delhi on 12.04.2021 and on 25.05.2021 the Appellant was relieved from duty with immediate effect as per Section 2 (i) (b) of Central Civil Services (Medical Examination) Rules. 19547 and directed to undergo medical treatment until he was declared mentally fit to discharge his official duties. A memorandum of charges was also issued to the Appellant on 27.12.2021. However, the Appellant has not reported for undergoing medical examination till date. Hence, on 29.04.2022 they sought the advice of the DoP&T for further course of action in the matter. This is still awaited.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondents, the Commission at the outset observes that appropriate responses as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 have been provided to the Appellant in all the matters. As per the provisions of the Act only such information that is held and available with a public authority can be provided and the PIO is not required to give opinions/ clarifications/ replies to hypothetical queries/ justifications to Page 30 of 32 the information seekers. Perusal of the records of the instant case leads the Commission to believe that it is a crude attempt to stifle and defeat the very purpose of the RTI Act. The means adopted by the Appellant by inundating the Public Authorities with multiple RTI cases points unfortunately to an attempt made to clog the system with a barrage of RTI applications, merely claiming that these are aimed at combating corruption and unlawful treatment meted out to him.
The Supreme Court in Advocate General, Bihar vs. M.P. Khair Industries (AIR 1980 SC 946) has termed "....filing of frivolous and vexatious petitions as abuse of the judicial process". Some of such abuses specifically mentioned by the Apex Court include initiating or carrying on proceedings which are wanting in bona- fides or which are frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. The Apex Court also observed that in such cases the Court has extensive alternative powers to prevent an abuse of its process by striking out or staying proceedings or by prohibiting taking up further proceedings. ....
The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) Vs B Bharathi [WP No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014] has also given its opinion about such vexatious litigation crippling the public authorities and held as follows:
"...The action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest....."
Emphasis supplied The Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar &Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] has observed that:
"........Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficial Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. ...................."
Emphasis supplied In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West-B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide its order dated 08.10.2015 has held that:
"8. .....Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of Page 31 of 32 the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto..."
The aforesaid dicta essentially proves that the misuse of RTI Act is a well recognized problem and citizens such as the Appellant should take note that their right to information is not absolute.
During the hearing, the Respondents representing Delhi Police, RML Hospital, New Delhi and IHBAS, New Delhi generally apprised the Commission about the state of mental health of the Appellant. The representations sent by the Appellant to the NHRC and IHBAS, New Delhi and his unparliamentary and despicable comments against government officials and high constitutional dignitaries clearly reveals his pitiable condition and indeed requires immediate attention and appropriate action. The Commission therefore advises Shri Ashutosh M, US, Election Commission of India and through him the senior officials of the ECI to consider the above mentioned observations and consider taking appropriate and expeditious action in the matter as per extant rules and regulations.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeals stand disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 32 of 32