Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.69 seconds)Section 20 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011
In the above context, in our order dated 9.2.2016, we also pointed out to the
Appellant / Complainant the observations made by the Supreme Court in Central Board of
Secondary Education vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay in Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011, in which
the Apex Court advised information seekers not to create a situation whereby 75% of the
time of the 75% public servants is spent only in responding to the RTI applications to the
detriment of their routine duties. As stated above, in our view, the Appellant /
Complainant is misusing the RTI Act. In this context, we note the following observations
made by the Commission in case No. CIC/SG/C/2011/000760 (plus three files) dated
17.1.2012:
"The Commission, at several appellate hearings, has explained to the complainant
that under RTI Act, only the information as per records can be made available;
multiple RTI applications and appeals would not provide him any information beyond
the records that exists. The Commission recognizes the fact that valuable time of the
complainant, respondentpublic authority as well as the Commission is being spent in
merely going through the motions prescribed under the RTI Act again and again to
obtain similar information.... At this juncture the Commission would like to mention that
though the right to information is a fundamental right of the citizens, it cannot be used
indiscriminately to fulfil the demands of one individual. In the present matter ,it must
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001898
be noted that the Complainant is pursuing multiple litigation and various public
authorities are being asked to divert an extraordinarily disproportionate amount of
resources just to respond to hundreds of RTI applications filed by him... The
Commission is also conscious of the fact that it is financed by the poorest man in this
country who may be starving to death. The complainant by repeatedly filing similar
RTI applications and appeals with the respondent public authority and the
Commission, is wasting public resources."
Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar And Ors. on 5 February, 2014
Further, we also reproduce below the observations made by the High Court of Delhi in its
judgment dated 5.2.2014 in Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. [W.P.(C) No.
845/2014]:
"10. 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 beneficent Statute, when
made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. A copy
of this order is directed to be sent by the Registry to Defence and Law Ministry, so
that they may examine the aspect of misuse of this Act, which confers very important
and valuable rights upon a citizen."
1