The Court advised the Petitioner not to abuse the process of law by repeatedly seeking the same information, as it dilutes the objective of the Right to Information Act. – Delhi HC
Title: Shishir Chand versus Central Information Commission
+ W.P.(C) 11820/2021 & CM APPLs. 38010/2022, 38023/2022, 46873/2023
Decided on: 19th DECEMBER, 2023
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Introduction:
The Petitioner has filed a Writ Petition challenging the Order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC).
Facts:
The Petitioner filed an RTI application on 01.05.2019 seeking information related to the Ethics Committee’s meetings and the medical qualifications of Dr. Atul Chhabra. The CIC on 19.08.2021 held that the information sought by the Petitioner was covered by earlier decisions and directed the Registry not to entertain any further cases from the Petitioner on the same subject matter. Hence the present appeal is filed impugning the said order.
Laws Involved:
RTI Act, 2005
Section- 2 (f): “Information” means any material in any form, including Records, Documents, Memos, e-mails, Opinions, Advices, press releases, Circulars, Orders, Logbooks, Contracts, Reports, Papers, Samples, Models, Data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a Public Authority under any other law for the time being in force.
Issues:
• Whether the CIC’s rejection of the appeal and direction to not entertain further cases from the Petitioner on the same subject matter was justified?
Courts Judgement and Analysis:
The Court allowed the Writ Petition in part. While sympathizing with the Petitioner’s pain, the Court advised the Petitioner not to abuse the process of law by repeatedly seeking the same information, as it dilutes the objective of the Right to Information Act. The Court held that although the RTI Act does not provide for dismissal of an application with costs, a citizen’s right to claim information cannot be extinguished if further or fresh information is sought. The Court set aside the impugned order passed by the CIC and directed the Registry to entertain further cases from the Petitioner on the same subject matter if fresh or further information is sought.
The Court recognized the laudable objective of the Right to Information Act, which is to bring about transparency in the functioning of the Government. However, the Court noted the increasing abuse and misuse of the Act. In this case, the Petitioner repeatedly filed applications seeking information that had already attained finality through previous court orders. The Court held that while the right to claim information cannot be extinguished, the Petitioner’s actions amounted to an abuse of the Right to Information. The Court emphasized the importance of not diluting the objective of the Act and advised the Petitioner to refrain from seeking the same information repeatedly.
Conclusion:
The Writ Petition is allowed in part. The Court sets aside the CIC’s order and directs the Registry to entertain further cases from the Petitioner on the same subject matter if fresh or further information is sought. The Petitioner is advised not to abuse the process of law by repeatedly seeking the same information, as it dilutes the objective of the Right to Information Act.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aditi