The Punjab State Information Commission has ruled that the Right to Information (RTI) Act cannot be used to settle personal scores, and that vexatious applications lacking public interest can be rejected at the level of the Public Information Officer (PIO). The commission observed that such requests disrupt the functioning of public authorities and undermine the spirit of the law.
Case Background
State Information Commissioner Pooja Gupta made the observation while disposing of an appeal filed by a Mohali resident who sought information from the Municipal Corporation, Zirakpur, in Mohali district. The appellant had complained that complete information was not provided even after two years and sought penal action against the PIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. He also requested permission for another inspection of records, claiming his representative was unaware of the contents of the RTI application.
Respondent's Submission
The respondent PIO, represented by a draftsman along with counsel, stated that the appellant had filed an RTI application seeking voluminous information. Despite a demand for the prescribed fee, the appellant requested inspection instead of depositing copying charges. The appellant was allowed inspection as per the commission's order dated July 9, 2025. During inspection, 100 pages were handed over free of cost, but the appellant did not pay any further fee. The PIO argued that the appellant habitually seeks voluminous information without public interest and avoids paying fees on various pretexts. The original record produced before the commission comprised 76,481 pages, and the appellant could obtain copies at his own expense.
Commission's Findings
After examining the case record, the commission noted that the appellant was unnecessarily harassing the respondent PIO and wasting time of the department and the commission. Five hearings were held, and the appellant was given sufficient opportunities to inspect records. The appellant sent a representative who was not aware of the facts, as admitted during proceedings, indicating no public interest in obtaining the information. The commission held that the information sought was vague and voluminous, and collecting such data diverts public authority resources.
Ruling
Concluding that the appellant was misusing the RTI Act, the commission ruled that such applications not filed in public interest can be dismissed at the initial stage. It held that no further cause of action remained and disposed of the appeal, directing that copies of the order be sent to both parties.
