Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), IC:—

Parties Present:

1. Appellant: VC not connected

Public authority: Mr. Hans Kumar Khanna, AO (Computers), Dayalbagh Educational Institute

Mr. S D Bhatnagar, Liaison Officer, Dayalbagh Educational Institute

2. The appellant filed RTI application and sought information regarding list of candidates who were called for interview and why her name was published and why she was not called for interview. PIO stated that as she did not fulfil the required criteria so she was not called for interview which was upheld by FAA. Appellant approached this Commission.

DECISION

3. The PIO, Mr. Hans Kumar Khanna, submitted as follows: a) the appellant filed repeated applications about same information and most of the information was shared with her, b) her husband, Mr. Vishal Saini, has filed more than 60 RTI applications and appeals, c) Mr. Vishal Saini was former student of the Institute, who was suspended for cheating in examinations and marks-sheet was cancelled, d) his wife, the present appellant, was an applicant for the post of Assistant Professor, but she was not called for the interview as she did not fulfil the eligibility criteria, and e) ever since, both of them are filing the repeated RTI application to harass the Institution. The PIO pleaded for ending this problem and allow them to perform their regular functions.

4. The decision of the Commission in the Mr. Vishal Saini multiple cases are as follows:

CIC/CC/A/2015/002503 and CIC/CC/A/2014/003036:

3. Mr. Hans Kumar, PIO submitted that the appellant was caught for cheating and unfair means in the examination and his result was rejected. He has filed more than 60 RTI applications and several second appeals. The CIC recorded him an admonition against the misused on 19.02.2016 The PIO brought to the notice of the Commission that he was making all serious allegations against the PIO and other higher authorities. It was also alleged that the appellant was filing RTI applications in the name of Mr. Rakesh Majhee. Apart from two appeals listed today nine more appeals (No. CIC/SA/A/2016/000111, CIC/CC/A/2015/004467, 003357, 003334, 003193, 003110, 002950, 000785 and 00324) on the same subject matter against the same respondent are pending.

4. The Commission found that all these appeals are repetitions and cannot be entertained because of res judicata (=the thing already decided). The Commission records admonition against the act of the appellant and imposes penalty of Rs. 10/- upon him, consequence of misuse, to be deposited in the library of the Dayalbagh Educational Institute, within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order. He is again warned against the repeated RTI request on the same subject and he should know that respondent authority has every authority to reject any repeated RTI application and also initiate necessary action as per law for harassment and causing wastage of time and money of the respondent authority. Hence, closed.

CIC/SA/A/2015/003189, CIC/SA/A/2015/003032, CIC/SA/A/2015/003033 and CIC/SA/A/2015/003034:

Proceedings Before the Commission:

3. The CPIO by his representation dated 9.1.2016 has stated that the appellant was a student of the Institute and that he was caught resorting to unfair means in his M. Ed and again in M. Com examination upon which his entire result was cancelled. His relations deteriorated with the Institute and he started filing mass RTI applications with motive to harass the Institute.

4. The Commission considers this case as the repetitive misuse of RTI Act by this disgruntled applicant, assuming the proportion of harassment to the Public Authority and thus, abuse of RTI Act. The Commission finds him to be an unreasonable litigant and constant trouble maker for the Dayal Bagh Educational Institute. The Commission observes that the Institute which is victimized by his repeated nuisance applications has every right to pursue action against such miscreant and habitual RTI applicant. The appellant has misused RTI forum and that the RTI in his hands got converted into a tool of oppression to intimidate the public authority. The RTI Act is but for the bonafide people in general and only in public interest, and never for the private vengeance of the dissatisfied applicants who have been convicted of disciplinary charges. RTI is not a rendezvous of disgruntled elements.

5. The Commission in its earlier order No. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA delivered on 25-6-2014 in the case of R.C Jain v. DTC, with respect to RTI applications which are repetitive and harassing in nature had observed as follows:

“Repetitive use of RTI an ABUSE:

5. The Commission considers this case as the case of repetitive use of RTI Act, assuming the proportion of harassment to the Public Authority and thus, abuse of RTI Act, by a disgruntled employee.

6. The respondent officers made fervent appeals to the Commission that they were compelled to spend most of the time in answering harassingly repeated questions about the same subject matter repeatedly asked from different angles; and about individual officers, whom, the applicant assumed to be responsible for the grievance. The Commission found that the applicant was one of the four disgruntled employees against whom action was taken or their claims were denied.

RTI: Not a rendezvous of disgruntled elements:

7.…. The Commission also noted an atmosphere of fear and worry was spread in the offices and the officers are hesitating to take action against erring staff members for fear of facing flood of questions under RTI. ……”

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, while explaining the significance of RTI had also observed as follows:

“67. ……… 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 and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive 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, tranquillity 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. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing “information furnishing”, at the cost of their normal and regular duties.”

7. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Shail Sahni v. Sanjeev Kumar. [W.P(C) 845/2014] with regard to the Misuse of the RTI Act had observed as follows:

“10. … 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.”

8. The Commission observes that such deliberate misuse of RTI Act should not be allowed and such situation need to be suitably dealt with to secure the faith of the public in the RTI Act and remove obstruction in functioning of public authority. If this kind of misuse is not checked, officers will be susceptible and prevented from performing their normal duty. Such a situation will lead to chaos in government administration. Misuse of RTI by the disgruntled appellant Mr. Vishal Saini by running a parallel system of filing mischievous RTI applications is motivated to harass Dayal Bagh Educational Institute and also to render them counter productive. This application deserves to be rejected and the appellant, admonished.

9. As held by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan in W.P(C) 406/2016 of Delhi High Court in case of Shail Sahni v. Smt Valsa Sara Mathew, 19th January, 2016 ……

“… Keeping in view the width and amplitude of the information sought by the petitioner, it is apparent that the RTI application of the appellant is nothing short of an abuse of process of law and motivated if not an attempt to intimidate the respondent.…………

…… 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 and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive 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.”

10. While placing reliance upon Shail Sahni v. Sanjeev Kumar., W.P (C) 845/2014, it was further observed that “misuse of 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.”

11. The Commission observes further that the right to information should not conflict with public interests like efficient operations of the Government functionaries and optimum use of limited fiscal resources when it comes to repetitive RTI applications like in the present case. Though, it is complex to visualize and enumerate all types of misuse of RTI; the Commission has however made an attempt to do so whenever such peculiar situation so arises by adopting a purposive construction to prevent abuse of RTI Law.

12. The Commission while observing that frivolous or vexatious proceedings amount to an abuse of the process of the court especially where the proceedings are absolutely groundless-like in the present case:

a) records admonition of the applicant for abusing his right to information and clogging public office,

b) records a stern warning that any such attempt to harass the Public authority with same or similar RTI application would be viewed as serious obstruction to activity of public authority and appropriate action as per law and judicial interpretation shall be taken against him

c) recommends the public authority not to entertain the same applicant anymore if he is abusing his right to information.

13. In view of the above, the Commission accordingly, rejects all the four appeals of the appellant.

5. The PIO alleged that the appellant and her husband are bent upon misusing the RTI for their personal purposes as stated by the PIO. Hence, the Commission closes the appeal and advises the couple-Vishal Saini and this appellant not to harass the educational institution any more, and also warns them that if they repeat, the respondent authority has every power to reject repeated RTI requests in public interest and in the interest of smooth functioning of the institute.

6. It was brought to the notice of the Commission that the appellant filed another second appeal numbered CIC/CC/A/2015/003339 which is pending for hearing. The information sought was the same.

7. The Commission found from the records shown by the PIO that most of the information was given. However, the Commission directs the respondent authority to provide the names and other details of the candidates for the interview to the appellant and place the entire information about the recruitments in the official website of the Institution, before 30.11.2016 With this, the present appeal and appeal no. CIC/CC/A/2015/003339 are closed.