Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Brij Krishan Sharma vs Directorate General Of Employment on 13 June, 2025

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                    के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                           Central Information Commission
                                बाबा गंगनाथ मार्ग, मुनिरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                            नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DGEAT/A/2024/135053

Shri Brij Krishna Sharma                                      ... अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Directorate General of Employment                    ...प्रतिवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                        :   10.06.2025
Date of Decision                       :   10.06.2025
Chief Information Commissioner         :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :         23.07.2024
PIO replied on                    :         14.08.2024
First Appeal filed on             :         23.09.2024
First Appellate Order on          :         14.10.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on   :         07.11.2024

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:-

"It is open secret of DGE that then the Under Secretary VS. Negi even after transferred from MoLE secretly and unauthorised accessing all DGE correspondence through above said private E mail and influencing his. Complaints and Inquiry matter. The above E mail IDs have been created on personal level. These Private Email IDs can be access by Mobile No, and recovery E mail is provided at the time of creation. These Email Ds can be hack easily by the person whose Mobile no and recovery Email ID mentioned in private E mail is.. Present Deputy Secretary, DGE SK. Biswas and Under Secretary Shri Barajesh Kumar are well aware about it and failed to maintain Official Secrecy and both are working to support Shri VS Negi, then the Under Secretary, presently posted at NITI AYOG as per direction of DDG Shei Amit Nirmal DGE including many of NCSC DA Centres, NCSC SC ST Centres using unauthorised Private Channel Gmail Rediffmail etc. to communicate and receive Official correspondence and Information not designed for secure communication can lead to data breachis, espionage and other security threats and data loss. Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary itself promoting and using Private Channel to communicate Official Information which is not authorised by Competent Authority and it is complete and clear violation of guidelines provided by MOLE"

The CPIO, Under Secretary vide letter dated 14.08.2024 replied as under:-

"Point No.1 to 17: Information is exempted to disclose under Section 8-1(j) of the RTI Act, 2005."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.09.2024. The FAA, Deputy Secretary vide order dated 14.10.2024 stated as under:-

"Whereas, an RTI First Appeal Registration No. DGEAT/A/E/24/00151 dated 23.09.2024 under RTI Act, 2005 against RTI Application No. DGEAT/R/E/24/ 00278 dated 23.07.2024.

2. The undersigned as First Appellate Authority has gone through the appeal and found that the reply sent by CPIO is upheld. It is further informed that the EE-2 Section and all NOSC for DA of DGE using Government email ID which is issued by NIC."

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri G K Mukherjee - Assistant Director, NSCS-DA and Shri Barajesh Kumar - US/CPIO, Ministry of Labour and Employment were present for hearing The Appellant was neither present for hearing nor reachable through telephone. The Respondent contended that information available on record had been duly furnished to the Appellant. It was further stated by the Respondent in line with their previous contentions that the Appellant an ex employee of the Respondent public authority has filed as many as 780 RTI applications, seeking frivolous random information, repeatedly. He has been harassing the organisation with the outrageous number of vexatious queries and answering the humungous number of 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 public authority which qualifies as information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, has been duly provided to the Appellant, as noted by the FAA in his order. Therefore, no further adjudication is deemed necessary in this case.

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 Page 2 of 6 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 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 Page 3 of 6 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....."

Emphasis supplied

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 toexercise 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

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:

"...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 3 batches of cases, totalling to approximately 112 cases filed by the same Appellant, upon Page 5 of 6 hearing the appeals on 29.01.2025, 25.03.2025 and 27.05.2025 whereby the Appellant was categorically advised as under:

".. 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 PIO is found legally appropriate, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामरिया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रति) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . चिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)