Gujarat Information Commission Takes Strong Action Against RTI Order Misuse
In a significant ruling that reinforces citizens' right to information, the Gujarat Information Commission (GIC) has imposed a penalty of Rs 5,000 on a Public Information Officer for wrongly denying an RTI application by misinterpreting a commission directive.
The case involved PIO of Sarigam gram panchayat who rejected petitioner Pankaj Rai's application seeking documents related to house number allotments and construction permits. The officer cited a February 1, 2025 commission order that restricted specific applicants from filing more than 12 RTI applications.
Commission Clarifies Order Was Meant for Specific Cases Only
The GIC made it clear that its earlier order had been completely misinterpreted. "The order dated Feb 1, 2025, applies only to the petitioner. It does not apply to any ordinary applicant," the commission stated in its ruling.
Despite this clear limitation in the original order, the PIO denied the information, and the first appellate authority - the taluka development officer - upheld this denial without proper examination of the facts.
Disciplinary Action Recommended Against Appellate Authority
Taking a serious view of the negligence displayed by both officers, the commission not only imposed the financial penalty but also directed that the amount be recovered from the PIO's salary. In a stronger move, the GIC recommended disciplinary proceedings against the taluka development officer for failing to properly examine the appeal.
The commission expressed concern over the widespread misuse of the "12 applications" restriction by PIOs across Gujarat, stating that it hoped "henceforth the misinterpretation of the orders will be stopped, and citizens will get relief."
However, the commission also upheld the confidentiality of certain documents, ruling that personal details including names, addresses, property transfer records and construction permits belonging to third parties were exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, citing absence of demonstrated substantial public interest.
This ruling serves as an important reminder about the proper implementation of RTI provisions while protecting both citizen rights and individual privacy.
