- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Shweta Saini v. Pio, Dayalbadh Educational Institute
Commission Opinion — Concise Analytical Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant filed an RTI application seeking the list of candidates called for an interview and asking why her name appeared in a publication but she was not called for interview. The Public Information Officer (PIO) replied that the appellant was not called because she did not fulfil the required eligibility criteria; this response was upheld by the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The appellant then approached the Central Information Commission (the Commission) in second appeal.
The PIO and the institution reported that the appellant (together with her husband, Mr. Vishal Saini) had repeatedly filed RTI applications on the same subject. The PIO stated that Mr. Vishal Saini (the appellant's husband) had filed more than 60 RTI applications and appeals, had been a former student who was suspended for cheating and had his marks-sheet cancelled, and that both were filing repetitive RTI requests to harass the Institute.
The Commission examined prior related proceedings involving the same parties and several earlier CIC orders addressing repetitive or harassing RTI applications by the same individual(s). The Commission made a decision on the present appeal and an additional pending appeal that sought the same information.
Legal Issues Presented
The opinion does not frame distinct legal issues as numbered questions. The matter primarily concerns the propriety of providing the requested information in the context of alleged repetitive and harassing RTI applications.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Position
- The appellant sought: (a) the list of candidates who were called for interview; and (b) an explanation why her name was published and why she was not called for interview.
- The appellant pursued remedies up to the Commission after the PIO and FAA declined to call her for interview on eligibility grounds.
Public Authority / PIO's Arguments
- The PIO stated that most of the requested information had already been provided to the appellant.
- The PIO alleged that the appellant and her husband filed repeated and multiplicative RTI applications on the same subject with the motive of harassment.
- The PIO stated that Mr. Vishal Saini (the appellant's husband) had filed more than 60 RTI applications and multiple appeals, had been suspended for cheating (with his result cancelled), and had been the subject of admonitions in previous CIC orders.
- The PIO pleaded for relief from the repeated burden and requested that the Commission put an end to the misuse and allow the public authority to perform its regular functions.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| CIC/CC/A/2015/002503 and CIC/CC/A/2014/003036 (orders involving Mr. Vishal Saini) | Found that repeated RTI appeals on the same subject were res judicata and constituted repetition; admonition and penalty imposed for misuse. | The Commission noted prior admonition against Mr. Vishal Saini, recorded that appeals were repetitive, imposed a nominal penalty (Rs. 10) as a consequence of misuse, and warned against repeated RTI requests. |
| CIC/SA/A/2015/003189; CIC/SA/A/2015/003032; CIC/SA/A/2015/003033; CIC/SA/A/2015/003034 | Examined repetitive/mass RTI applications as harassment and abuse of the RTI Act; described such applicants as unreasonable and disruptive. | The Commission characterized the conduct as repetitive misuse and abuse, concluded the applicant was a trouble-maker, and held that the public authority could pursue action against habitual RTI applicants. These orders supported rejecting similar appeals. |
| CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA (R.C. Jain v. DTC) | Observation that repetitive RTI requests which are harassing in nature amount to abuse of the RTI Act and hinder administration. | The Commission relied on the reasoning in this order to reinforce that repetitive, harassing RTI use is an abuse and must be checked. |
| CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 (Supreme Court) | Principle that indiscriminate or impractical RTI demands unrelated to transparency and accountability are counterproductive; RTI should not be misused or allowed to obstruct administration. | The Commission cited the Supreme Court's admonition to show that the RTI Act must not be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation and that misuse should be checked to preserve administrative efficiency. |
| Shail Sahni v. Sanjeev Kumar, W.P.(C) 845/2014 (Delhi High Court) | Observation that misuse of the RTI Act must be appropriately dealt with to preserve public confidence in the Act and to prevent abuse. | The Commission relied on this decision to justify dealing firmly with misuse and to support measures that prevent the RTI Act from becoming a tool of mischief. |
| W.P.(C) 406/2016 (Shail Sahni v. Smt Valsa Sara Mathew) — Delhi High Court (Justice Manmohan, 19 Jan 2016) | Commentary that certain RTI applications, by their breadth, may amount to an abuse of process and an attempt to intimidate, and that indiscriminate demands are counterproductive for administration. | The Commission cited this reasoning to reinforce the point that broad or impractical RTI demands can amount to abuse and to justify rejecting repetitive, harassing requests. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Commission's analysis proceeded from factual findings in the record and from prior orders addressing the conduct of the appellant (and her husband). The Commission accepted the PIO's factual assertions that most of the requested information had already been supplied and that the appellant and her husband had engaged in repeated RTI requests on the same subject.
The Commission then examined the matter in the context of prior Commission orders and judicial authorities. It relied on its own earlier findings (including orders that recorded admonitions and penalties) and on authoritative judicial guidance (notably CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and decisions of the Delhi High Court) to reason that repetitive, harassing, or indiscriminate use of the RTI Act is an abuse that undermines administrative efficiency and public confidence in the Act.
Applying those principles to the present facts, the Commission concluded that the pattern of repeated RTI applications by the appellant and her husband amounted to misuse of the RTI forum and an abuse of process. The Commission therefore treated the present appeals in light of the established pattern of repetition and harassment. Nonetheless, after observing that most information had already been provided, the Commission directed the respondent authority to provide the specific remaining information (names and other details of candidates for the interview) and to place the entire recruitment information on the institution's official website by a specified date.
In addition to ordering disclosure of the specified information, the Commission recorded admonitions and warnings: it admonished the applicant for abusing the right to information, warned that similar attempts to harass the public authority would attract appropriate action, and recommended that the public authority refuse to entertain further abusive or repetitive RTI applications from the same applicant.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The Commission closed the present appeal and the related pending appeal (CIC/CC/A/2015/003339) after directing the respondent authority to provide the names and other details of the candidates called for interview to the appellant and to place the complete recruitment information on the institution's official website by 30.11.2016.
Implications:
- The Commission admonished the appellant (and noted prior admonitions against her husband) for abusing the RTI process by filing repetitive and harassing requests.
- The Commission issued a stern warning that repetition of similar RTI requests would be treated as serious obstruction and could attract appropriate legal or procedural action by the public authority or by the Commission.
- The Commission recommended that the public authority refuse to entertain repeated RTI requests from the same applicant if such requests amount to abuse.
- No new legal doctrine or binding precedent beyond the application of existing Commission orders and cited judicial authority was created in this decision; the outcome was oriented to resolving the specific appeals and addressing the pattern of alleged misuse.
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.
Alert