Central Information Commission
Brig. Pradeep Kumar Upmanyu (Retd.) vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ... on 13 November, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/GGSIU/A/2025/123541
Brig. Pradeep Kumar Upmanyu (Retd.) .....अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनतम
CPIO,
Assistant Registrar-(Estt.) & CPIO,
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha
University, Sector-16-C, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110078 .....प्रतर्वतदीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.11.2025
Date of Decision : 13.11.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25.02.2025
CPIO replied on : 26.03.2025
First appeal filed on : 26.03.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 08.04.2025
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 14.07.2025
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 25.02.2025 seeking the following information:
"Please provide me the certified copy of the following: -Page 1 of 8
1. Certified copy of the Agenda Item No 85.23 placed before the Board of Management of GGSIPU in its 85th meeting held on 14.01.2025.
2. Certified copy of the file on which the proposal was put up and approval of the Vice-Chancellor, GGSIPU was obtained.
3. Certified copy of the draft Gazette Notification sent to the Government of NCT of Delhi for publication in the Gazette for amendment of Ordinance.
4. Certified copy of the Gazette Notification containing amendments of approval by BOM, GGSIPU in its meeting held on 14.01.2025.
5. Certified copy of the Authority which states that the amendment to Ordinance shall come in to force from the date of the approval of Board of Management without being notified in the Gazette."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 26.03.2025 stating as under:
"Reply to the query no. 1 & 2: The minutes of the agenda item no. 85.23 alongwith with the details of amendments is available on the University website.
Reply to the query no. 3 & 4:- The draft Gazette Notification has been sent to DHE. Once, the same is published, the same would be available on the e-Gazette Portal i.e. egazette.gov.in.
Reply to the query no. 5:-
The minutes of the meetings of the Authorities of the University is available on the University website."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.03.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 08.04.2025; held as under.
"The undersigned has gone through the records. It has been observed that the sufficient information as available with the University has been provided to the appellant vide CPIO letter dated 26.03.2025. Therefore, no further intervention is required by First Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the appeal filed by Brig. Pradeep Kumar Upmanyu (Retd.) is disposed of."Page 2 of 8
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: He, along with Shri N. Kumar, appeared in person. Respondent: Shri Naveen Bhardwaj, CPIO/Section Officer; Shri Subhash Sharma, Consultant; Shri Naveen Budhiraja, Assistant Registrar (Establishment); Shri Rajendra Samath, Section Officer; and Shri Sumit Kohli, Assistant, appeared in person.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 14.07.2025 is available on record.
6. The Appellant inter alia submitted that reply given by the Respondent was evasive and misleading as specific documents sought on point Nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI application was not provided by the Respondent Authority till the date of hearing.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 07.11.2025 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record, copy of the same was sent to the Appellant. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
1. The appellant filed an RTI request (Application No. PKU/GGSIU/REP/A/01(04)/022025 dated 25.02.2025) seeking information on five points. The CPIO of the Public Authority responded by letter No.F.23(1)(52)/2025/RTI/1052/4541 dated 26.03.2025, by providing the requested information.
2. Despite that response, the appellant then filed a First Appeal before the First Appellate Authority by letter No. PKU/RTI/GGSIPU/FAA/A/01(04)/032025.
3. The First Appellate Authority, after hearing the appellant and the CPIO and examining the records, disposed of the First Appeal by Order No. GSIPU/FAA/2025/1052-1729/723 dated 08.04.2025, stating therein that Page 3 of 8 sufficient information as available with the University has been provided to the appellant vide CPIO letter dated 26.03.2025.
4. Thereafter, the appellant nonetheless filed a Second Appeal before the Central Information Commission (CIC) despite the fact that the Public Authority had provided the available record to the appellant.
5. The respondent authority, further make the submissions before the Hon'ble Commission, that although in respect of point number 1&2, the CPIO has already informed to the appellant that Minutes of the agenda item No. 85.23 along with the details of amendments is available on the University website, however, respondent authority has no objection to allow inspection of the relevant file pertaining to the matter. Thereafter, on inspection, if any part of the note portion is specifically sought, it may also consider to share the same in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
6. Further, in respect of points 03 and 04, Copy of Gazette Notification dated 03.04.2025 is attached as Ann-I (4 Pages). And in respect of point No.05, the Public Authority is ready to allow inspection of relevant agenda on any working day by providing prior intimation through email at [email protected]
7. The Public Authority submits that the appellant's conduct demonstrates misuse of the Right to Information Act, 2005 ("RTI Act") by means of repetitive, voluminous, and largely unfocused requests aimed not at advancing a public interest in transparency, but rather at harassing the Public Authority and its officers. The jurisprudence recognizes that while the right to information is fundamental, it is not absolute particularly when invoked in a way that burdens the functioning of public authorities.
In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court stated that "this Court is... seeing increasing abuse/misuse of the RTI Act ... The purpose of the RTI Act is meant to further good governance, and unfortunate misuse of the same will only dilute its importance as well as make government servants dither from carrying out their activities."
The CIC has similarly held in a case of hundreds of RTI applications filed by the same person:
"The appellant ...has filed as many as 780 RTI applications ... seeking frivolous random information.... the information sought in most of his RTI applications has no public interest at all.... The RTI Act cannot be allowed to Page 4 of 8 be misused or abused and to become a tool of oppression or for intimidation of officials striving to do their duty."
Prior decisions of the CIC recognize that "repetitive use of RTI ... assuming the proportion of harassment to the Public Authority... thus abuse of RTI Act" constitutes legitimate ground for rejecting or curtailing requests.
The Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011, 8 SCC 497) decision of the Supreme Court held:
Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities ...) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration..."
8. Applying those principles to the present case, the Public Authority submits:
The appellant has already been furnished the information responses for all points and now the respondent Public Authority, is also ready to allow inspection as mentioned in the foregoing paras (para 5 and 6).
The continued pursuit of a second appeal despite full compliance strongly suggests that the appellant's motive is not bona fide pursuit of transparency for public interest, but rather persistent litigation in respect of matters already settled and compliance already effected amounting to harassment, misuse of the process, and diversion of the Public Authority's resources.
The RTI Act contemplates disclosure of "information" under Section 2(1) and the Act's Preamble speaks of harmonizing the right to information with other public interests, including efficient functioning of Government. The jurisprudence emphasizes that the Act must not be turned into a weapon of oppression. (See above) The appellant's pattern (multiple appeals on overlapping or same subject- matter, despite responses) falls squarely within the category of what Courts and the CIC have held to be "misuse" of the RTI. In such cases the Public Authority is justified in taking steps to resist further frivolous/largely repetitive demands and to ask the Commission to dismiss such appeals.
In view of the above, the Public Authority requests that the Second Appeal be dismissed on the ground of abuse of process/misuse of the RTI Act, and Page 5 of 8 that the appellant be appropriately admonished or such relief be granted as the Commission deems fit.
9. Public interest vs. private interest - The Public Authority denies that there is a genuine "larger public interest" behind the appellant's continued pursuit of the matter. On the contrary, the facts reflect private interest, repetitiveness, voluminous demands and an intent to intimidate/harass officers rather than to enlighten the public. As the jurisprudence holds, the reason for seeking information does not have to be disclosed, but where the process is being abused, the authorities are not powerless. For example:
"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 ... nor the Courts are helpless if they witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto."
10. Accordingly, the Public Authority respectfully prays:
(a) that the Second Appeal be dismissed on the ground that the appellant has been furnished the demanded information and now is ready to allow inspection and shall consider to share information as shall be required by him after inspection, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.
(b) that the Commission record a finding of misuse/abuse of the RTI Act by the appellant in pursuing repetitive, voluminous, and primarily private-
interest-driven demands.
11. This submission is made without prejudice to the right of the Respondent to modify and/or supplement its grounds, rely upon further oral or written evidence, as may be required at the hearing of this appeal."
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that the Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction on the reply given by the Respondent on point Nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI Application. The Appellant is satisfied with the reply given by the Respondent on the remaining points. The Respondent through their written submission dated 07.11.2025 offered inspection of Page 6 of 8 records to the Appellant on point Nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI Application which he agreed.
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the Commission directs the Respondent to facilitate inspection of all relevant files/records related to the information sought on point Nos. 1 and 2 of the Appellant's RTI applications on a mutually decided date & time within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Before giving a date to the Appellant, the Respondent should supply him a list of files connected with the query No. 1 and 2 in the RTI applications giving File Nos., Subject of the file, and total number of pages of correspondence in each file. Further, the CPIO is directed to arrange all relevant files/records at one place before calling the Appellant for inspection. The intimation of the date and time of the inspection shall be provided to the Appellant by the CPIO telephonically and in writing. In the process of facilitating the inspection and providing subsequent copies of the record, the CPIO is at liberty to withhold/redact third party information or any other information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 of the RTI Act read with Section 10 of the RTI Act.
10. Copy of documents that the Appellant desires during the inspection shall be provided by the CPIO free of cost up to 20 pages and thereafter on payment of charges as per RTI Rules.
11. The above directions shall be complied with by the CPIO within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
12. The FAA is directed to ensure compliance with this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानित सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Page 7 of 8 Copy To:
FAA & REGISTRAR GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY SECTOR 16 C DWARKA NEW DELHI 110078 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)