The State Information Commission of Haryana has delivered a significant ruling, affirming that a State Public Information Officer (SPIO) functions solely as a statutory facilitator and possesses no legal authority to restrain, bar, or blacklist any appellant or complainant from filing Right to Information (RTI) applications.
The case originated from a complaint filed by Sandeep Sharan, who had submitted an RTI application to Shahbad Sugar Mills Limited in Kurukshetra on November 12, 2025. In response dated January 21, the SPIO purportedly attempted to prohibit the complainant from filing further RTI applications, citing the submission of repeated requests. The SPIO also denied the requested information and threatened legal action for disrupting official duties if the complainant persisted.
Aggrieved by this response, the complainant approached the State Information Commission on January 27. The Commission observed that the SPIO had failed to provide correct and complete information to the applicant.
Commission's Observations
State Information Commissioner Dr Ajay Kumar Sura, after hearing both parties, made several critical observations. He stated that even in cases where an appellant files voluminous, repetitive, or allegedly vexatious requests, the SPIO cannot issue any injunction, embargo, or blanket prohibition. Instead, the SPIO must deal with each RTI application independently on a case-to-case basis, and may only invoke exemptions specifically provided under Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Dr Sura further noted that the RTI Act contains no provision empowering an SPIO to issue a restraining order against an information seeker. Any such action is clearly ultra vires the provisions of the Act and therefore lacks legal sanction. He emphasized that an SPIO is a statutory authority and can only exercise powers expressly conferred by the statute.
Directives Issued
The Commissioner's order, dated June 12, highlighted that while misuse of the RTI Act by chronic litigants may impose an administrative burden on public authorities, neither the authority nor its SPIO can pass administrative orders restraining a citizen from exercising a statutory right conferred by law.
The State Information Commissioner directed the SPIO of Shahabad Sugar Mills Limited to furnish complete information to the appellant via registered post within 15 days. Additionally, the SPIO was instructed to submit a detailed explanation specifying which provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, if any, empower an SPIO to debar or restrain an appellant from filing RTI applications merely on the ground of multiple requests.
This ruling reinforces the principle that the right to information is a fundamental right and that public authorities must adhere strictly to the RTI Act without overstepping their statutory boundaries.
