Central Information Commission
Rachhpal Singh Saini vs Aiims, Rishikesh on 14 February, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/AIMRS/A/2024/607392
Shri Rachhpal Singh Saini ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, AIIMS, Rishikesh ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.02.2025
Date of Decision : 12.02.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.11.2023
PIO replied on : 27.12.2023
First Appeal filed on : 27.12.2023
First Appellate Order on : 20.02.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 22.02.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.11.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
"I am writing to you as a concerned citizen with a keen interest in the transparency and accountability of public institutions. Under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005, I hereby request the following details pertaining to the staff and operations at AIIMS Rishikesh:
Comprehensive Employee Information:
Provide complete details of all employees, including vendor employees, working at AIIMS Rishikesh from its inception to the current date. This should include their respective positions, the selection process they went through, their educational qualifications, and details of their prior experience.
Employment History and Reasons for Separation:
Furnish the exact start dates of employment for each employee.in the case of any terminations, please provide the reasons for termination For resignations, please state the reasons given by the employees for resigning. Work Schedules and Designated Days Off Provide the official duty timings for all staff members, including vendor employees. Share information on the designated day off for each employee. Vendor Selection Process Provide a detailed explanation of the selection process employed for vendors providing services at AIIMS. Patient Statistics: Supply daily patient statistics from the inception of AIIMS Rishikesh to the current date, including the number of patients seen each day. Present this information in a clear, day-to-day breakdown, ensuring accuracy and promptness. Patient Page 1 of 5 Mortality and Post-Term/Pre-Term Births: Provide the total number of patient deaths recorded at AIIMS Rishikesh from its inception to the current date. Offer a day-to-day breakdown of the number of post-term and pre-term births at AllMS Rishikesh during the aforementioned period. Action Committee Details Furnish complete details, including contact numbers, of all action committees currently functioning at AIIMS Rishikesh Patient Feedback Records: Provide a comprehensive logbook containing patient feedback records, starting from the inception of AIIMS until the present date. Employee Feedback and Complaint Resolution: Supply a detailed report on feedback received for all employees at AIIMS covering the entire duration of their employment. Present an action report documenting the measures taken by AIIMS in response to complaints regarding unprofessional behavior by nurses and doctors.
Ensure that this action report provides a thorough account of the actions taken to address these complaints. Information Format and Deadline: kindly request you to provide the requested information within the statutory time period of 30 days, as mandated by the Right to Information Act. In line with my preference for electronic communication I would appreciate receiving the information via email or in a printable electronic format.
Section 6(1): This section outlines the scope of information that can be requested under the RTI Section 7/9)-This section states that information should be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would"
The CPIO vide letter dated 27.12.2023, AIIMS, Rishikesh replied as under:-
"Please refer to your RTIs application Registration #AMSRK/R/E/23/00449, dated-18.11.2023, was received at RTI Cell, AIIMS, Rishikesh. In this connection, it has been observed that the applicant has filed numerous RTIs with repeated questions. The instant one RTI application consist of the information sought by the applicant which has already been asked by him in RTI application #AMSRK/R/E/23/00450 dated 18.11.2023 and was replied and communicated vide this office letter #212/RTI Cell/316/Mr. Rachhpal Singh Saini/2023/613/12th December, 2023. The same reply holds good for the RTI #AMSRK/R/E/22/00449."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.12.2023. The FAA, Medical Superintendent, AIIMS, Rishikesh vide order dated 20.02.2024 stated as under:-
"CPIO stated that Mr. Rachhpal Singh Saini has sought information about the staff and operations at AIIMS Rishikesh, It has been confirmed by the CPIO that all relevant & available information has been given by him and he has nothing to further add.
CPIO, further stated that the delay in this case was unintentional and may be condoned.
It has been observed that that the applicant has filed more than 100 RTIs within a short span. Many of these consist repeated information as replied to the possible and there are such voluminous Information sought the collection and collation of information would have required disproportionate allocation of resources and same being provided under Section 7(9) of RTI Act, 2005. There are no scope of repeating RTI under RTI Act, 2005.
Furthermore, is has been observed that Mr. Rachhpal Singh Saini has imposed baseless, stagmetic, stereo-type allegation of serious nature on the CPIO, which Page 2 of 5 is defaming Institute of National Importance without any ground, concerned established office procedure. From this it appears that the applicant's motive is not to obtain information sought, but to harass the public authority by intimidation.
In view of above, I upheld the information furnished by CPIO and the instant Appeal is disposed-off accordingly."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A comprehensive written submission dated 10.01.2025 has been received from CPIO, AIIMS, Rishikesh reiterating the response sent to the Appellant, adding the following points as under:
1. Applicant Mr Rachhpal Singh Saini has evolved a strange and unwarranted practice of sending repeated emails to strongly follow up his RTI and First Appeals and marking the same to many highly ranked officials of central / State Govts, and AIIMS Rishikesh in addition to Hon'ble Ministers and other non-
concerning persons in violation of legal procedure prescribed under RTI Act and rules made therein for filing first and second appeals.
2. Furthermore, the language used in such emails is found to be misleading, motivated, stereotype, unwarranted, stigmatic, intimidating, defamatory with baseless and motivated allegations upon CPIO, AIIMS Rishikesh and other senior officials from time to time. Few such emails are enclosed as Annexure- 'E'. Applicant is not stopping such spamming work in spite of various replies sent to him to restrain from such practice, one of which is enclosed as Annexure- 'F'. It is most humbly submitted that such practice needs to be addressed and discouraged by the esteemed office of Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner under RTI Act New Delhi.
3. Applicant Mr Rachhpal Singh Saini has filed more than 203 RTIs and 144 Appeals before FAA in AIIMS Rishikesh (many of them being repetitive and/or frivolous in nature), it is self-evident that the applicant is misusing the RTI law for some mischievous reasons, best known to him. Needless to mention that on previous occasions, various competent courts have held that disclosure of information to the repetitive applicants for their private purpose which promotes their private interest but not the public interest causes substantial harm to the legitimate aim of the Right to Information Act.
4. The public authority is compelled to spend most of the time in answering harassingly repeated questions about the same subject matter repeatedly asked from different angles.
The Respondent has referred to the following decisions:
1. CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay,
2. Shail Sahni Vs Sanjeev Kumar and Ors and contended in the submission that indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information on the pretext of eradicating corruption etc. proves to be counterproductive and adversely affects efficiency of the administration resulting in executive getting bogged down by the non productive work of collecting and furnishing information. It has been contended that RTIs of repeated nature result into abuse of process of law and motivated in addition to be an attempt to intimidate or overwhelm the public Page 3 of 5 authorities. A brief summary of the various information sought by the Appellant as also been stated by the Respondent.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Pradeep Chandra Pandey - Law Officer/CPIO was present during hearing.
The Respondent placed reliance on the aforementioned written submissions and reiterated his contentions about having supplied all available information to the Appellant, as and when sought by the Appellant, in terms of the RTI Act.
Decision Perusal of records reveals that information held by the public authority has been duly disseminated to the Appellant, in terms of the RTI Act. Therefore, no further action is warranted in this regard.
In so far as the RTI application is concerned, the Commission cannot help but notice that the Appellant has been filing repeated RTI applications seeking information trying to conduct performance audit of the public authority, viz. the AIIMS, Rishikesh. The sheer volume of information sought and the repetitive nature of queries obviously is burdening of the public authority, who cannot be deployed to only respond to such a litany of frivolous questions, neglecting the primary duty of catering to public health. As has been rightly pointed out by the Respondent, the Courts have on various instances remarked that the right to information is a cherished and formidable tool in the hands of a sensitive citizenry and this tool is meant to be used diligently. Though the legislation has not manifestly restricted the scope of usage of the Right to seek Information, but the same is inherent and the right to information cannot be treated as an unfettered right. The expression "practical regime" mentioned in the preamble of this welfare legislation cannot be overlooked and must act as a guiding light while reckoning the extent of right to secure access to information. Any right cannot be unbounded or aimless nor can any right be enjoyed without observing the duty and responsibility that comes with it. A right cannot be enforced to such an extent that the underlying objective behind its parent statute gets defeated. A right ought to be exercised with responsibility. Reckless exercise of the right will defeat the purpose of the statute bestowing that right upon the individual. Thus the act of lodging RTI applications en bloc by the Appellant is not in consonance with the object of the statute. On this aspect, it is pertinent to place reliance on the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. [2011(8) SCC 497] in the following words:
37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. ... Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing Page 4 of 5 information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties.
On similar lines, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had made certain observations while deciding the case of Inst. Of Chartered Accountants Of India vs Shaunak H Satya & Ors on 2 September, 2011, relevant excerpt whereof is as under:
26. ... The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.
Thus the Appellant is discouraged from filing series of RTI applications and flooding the CPIOs with such repetitive queries since it is not in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act and in fact quite contrary to the very purpose of bringing about transparency and awareness. A single information seeker cannot usurp a collective right to the peril of all others having identical right nor a person be allowed to file indiscriminate and irrelevant cases seeking such humungous amount of information to clog the system of adjudication itself to the detriment of other genuine information seekers. It is also worth mentioning that the same Appellant had filed another batch of more than ten cases which were decided by this Bench vide order dated 02.12.2024 with similar observations. It is pertinent to note that the Appellant had chosen not to contest the case as he has done today, thereby indicating his disinterest in seeking the information per se.
Since appropriate response had been furnished by the Respondent and the Appellant has chosen not to participate in the hearing, no further intervention is warranted in this case.
The appeal is disposed of as such.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)