The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a petition that sought original documents from the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The court ruled that providing original documents is not within the scope of the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO).
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Himanshu Parmar, who had requested information and further disclosure under the RTI Act from the university regarding temporary teaching appointments. His RTI applications covered several concerns, including reservation policies in temporary teaching posts, the number of applicants, selection and waiting lists, and whether SC/ST representatives were part of selection committees. Parmar also alleged that the university had failed to comply with an education department circular dated May 3, 2022, and had not uploaded the list of selected candidates.
Appeal and Commission's Order
Unsatisfied with the information provided by the university's information authority, Parmar appealed, contending that the supplied information was incomplete and not supported by office records. The Gujarat Information Commission issued an order on September 15, 2025, stating that the information officer could supply information available to him.
Dissatisfied with the authorities' decisions, Parmar filed a petition in the High Court, insisting that office records be provided as well. The university opposed the petition, clarifying that the information sought had been provided in accordance with the Commission's order. The information officer also noted that the petitioner had a habit of filing RTI applications and had submitted 25 applications one after the other. At one point, he was asked to refrain from filing applications on the same issue.
Court's Ruling
After hearing the matter, Justice H M Prachchhak stated that the CPIO's responsibility under the RTI Act ends with providing all information and documents accessible to him. The court noted that copies of accessible documents had already been supplied. The court emphasized that "the insistence of the petitioner that the original document is to be supplied is not within the purview of the CPIO", and therefore the contention raised by the petitioner was "not tenable in the eyes of law." Consequently, the court declared that "the petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed."
