Central Information Commission
Brij Krishan Sharma vs Ministry Of Labour & Employment on 29 May, 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/MLABE/A/2024/123781
Shri Brij Krishan Sharma ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Labour & Employment
Date of Hearing : 27.05.2025
Date of Decision : 27.05.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.04.2024
PIO replied on : 02.05.2024
First Appeal filed on : 23.05.2024
First Appellate Order on : 19.06.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 24.07.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.04.2024 seeking information on following points:-
1. "..Copy of the employee attendance register from January 2024 to March 24.
2. Copy of the orders of leave deduction of late coming employees.
3. Copy of the documents of disciplinary action taken against the late coming employees.
4. Copy of bill of Biometric Attendance Machines purchased in the office as per norms prescribed by Government.
5. Copy of Warranty or Maintenance Contract of Biometric Machines.
6. Copy of Bio Matrix Machine Guarantee Card.
7. Clarify the status of linking the Aadhaar number of all officers with biometric machines of all centers.
8. Copies of attendance registers of all officers and employees using biometric machines from January 24 to March 2024.
9. Scholarships are given to trainees under DBT scheme in your center. Copy of biometric attendance register of all trainees.
10. Copy of documents of action taken to repair biometric machines in field offices where they remain out of order for more than 2 days in a month.
11. Provide complete information about alternative arrangements in case of breakdown of biometric machine.
Page 1
12. After calculating biometric attendance in the office, whether its calculation is included while preparing the salary of employees at the end of the month or not. Whether it is linked to PFMS or not..."
The Sub-Regional Employment Officer/CPIO, NCSC for SC/STs, New Delhi vide letter dated 02.05.2024 replied as under:-
"..Point No. 1 to 6, 9 & 10:-The information can not be considered to disclosed as per sanction 8(1)(J) of RTI Act, 2005.
Point No. 7:- The aadhar no of all officers are LINKED WITH BIOMETRIC MACHINE.
AS per section 8 (i) (j) of RTI Act, 2005, the personal information of individual can not be given.
Point No. 8:- Involves 3rd party information hence exempted under section 8 (i) (j) of RTI Act, 2005, information can not be given.
Point No. 11 & 12:- On clarifications no comment can be offered..."
The CPIO/Assistant Director (Employment), NCSC, Ministry of Labour & Employment (DGE), Delhi vide letter dated 07.05.2024 replied as under:-
"Point No. 1 to 6, 8, 10 & 12:-The requisite information cannot be provided under Section 8(l) (j) of RTI ACT Point No. 9:- Yes, copy of attendance register is not provided under Section 8(l) (j) of RTI ACT.
Point No. 7:- Yes, all staff aadhar number are linked with biometric machine at NCSC for DA. Delhi.
Point No. 11:- As per Govt of India guidelines alternative arrangements provided to employee of this Centre in case of breakdown of biometric machine."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.05.2024. The FAA vide order dated 19.06.2024 stated as under:-
2. "The undersigned as First Appellate Authority has gone through the grounds of appeal and found that the sought information has not been furnished by the concerned CPIOs of NCSC for DA Bangalore, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Ranchi, Srinagar and Shillong. Further, the reply provided by the CPIOs of NCSC of DA Jabalpur, Delhi, Patna and Kanpur seems inappropriate.
Hence, the CPIOs are directed to supply the sought information within 15 days."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Page 2 Respondent: Mr. Brajesh Kumar, US, CPIO and Mr. G.K. Mukherjee, AD, NCSC - participated in the hearing.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly provided to the Appellant. They further stated that the Appellant is an ex-employee of the Respondent public authority who has filed as many as 780 RTI applications, seeking frivolous random information, repeatedly. They stated that Appellant is a habitual RTI Applicant and files RTI Applications to harass the Respondent Public Authority by clogging their working system. They averred that answering the humungous number of RTI Applications has substantially impacted the work force, diverting human resources and other public resources of the public authority.
Decision:
1. Perusal of records of the case reveals that the information available on record with the respective public authorities which qualifies as information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, has been duly provided to the Appellant.
2. In the light of the large number of cases filed by the Appellant and the factual premise of the cases, the Commission finds it worthwhile to mention a similar case wherein this Commission in its decision no.
CIC/YA/A/2014/001071, 001123, 001210 while disposing of a batch of fifteen matters of one Sh. M Danasegar dated 30.06.2015 had held as follows:
"......The Commission finds this case to be a classic instance of blatant misuse of RTI Act by the appellant, who is a disgruntled employee of the same organisation, through relentlessly filing of a series of RTI applications to harass officials of a public authority. The information sought in most of his RTI applications has no public interest at all and veers around the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. In the process of seeking the same, the appellant has resorted to reckless data mining on a humongous scale. Still, information has been provided by the respondent authorities as per record on some points and the rest denied for the reason that it is either voluminous or not available or relates to clarification/interpretation. The appellant, motivated by personal interest, has clearly sought such information with the vengeful motive to harass the officers through a flurry of RTI applications. The RTI Act cannot be allowed to be misused or abused and to become a tool of oppression or for intimidation of officials striving to do their duty. ..."
Emphasis supplied
3. The Commission in its aforesaid decision placed reliance on the following Apex Court decision regarding vexatious and frivolous petitions. 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 RTI process. Some of such abuses specifically mentioned by the Page 3 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. ...."
4. The Apex Court had discussed the issue of wasteful vexatious litigation in great detail in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11), where J. Pasayat had held:
".........It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but expressing our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case... ... ... etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system..........."
Emphasis supplied
5. Vexatious litigation and misuse of RTI Act has been discussed in the decision of 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] wherein it has been 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....."
Page 4
6. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court also 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 toex ercise 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. ...................."
7. 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 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 observation 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.
8. Considering the adverse impact of unmanageable amount of queries, the Apex Court in a vital decision The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya and Ors, A.I.R 2011 SC 3336) has categorically cautioned thus:
"...The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. ... The right to information is a fundamental right as enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared in a plethora of cases that the most important value for the functioning of a healthy and well-informed democracy is transparency. However it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. 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.."
Emphasis supplied
9. In the other landmark judgement in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Apex Court held as follows:
Page 5 "...The Act seeks to bring about a balance between two conflicting interests, as harmony between them is essential for preserving democracy. One is to bring about transparency and accountability by providing access to information under the control of public authorities. The other is to ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The preamble to the Act specifically states that the object of the Act is to harmonise these two conflicting interest. ...................................
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 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..."
Emphasis supplied
10. It is also important to note that this Bench has in the past decided 60 cases filed by the same Appellant, upon hearing the appeals on 29.01.2025 and 25.03.2025 whereby the Appellant was categorically advised thus:
".. In view of the settled position as enunciated in the above decisions and the facts of the case at hand, it is noted that undoubtedly the modus operandi of filing such large number of irrelevant and unrelated RTI applications is neither proper nor acceptable. Hence, the Appellant is advised to refrain from misusing the RTI Act to resolve any personal grudges..."
In the light of the aforementioned discussion and in view of the fact that response sent by the PIOs is found legally appropriate, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
Page 6 The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
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 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)