The Punjab State Information Commission has observed that the Right to Information Act cannot be employed as a tool to "create terror" among public authorities or to exploit them with ulterior motives. This observation was made by State Information Commissioner Bhupinder Batth while disposing of an appeal filed by a Bathinda resident who sought information from the Local Government Department.
Background of the Case
The commission noted that several orders had been passed in this case earlier, including an order dated January 5, 2023, by former State Information Commissioner Lt Gen Ajae Kumar Sharma (retd), through which a show-cause notice was issued to the respondent Public Information Officer. After Lt Gen Sharma demitted office upon completion of his tenure on August 4, 2023, the case was reallocated to the bench of former State Information Commissioner Amrit Partap Singh Sekhon. However, the appellant expressed dissatisfaction and lack of faith in that bench. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the file was sent to the registry for transfer to another bench, and the matter was subsequently reallocated to the bench of Bhupinder Batth.
Appellant's Conduct
On January 27, 2026, the appellant remained absent before the commission. The respondent stated that the information and reply, after removal of deficiencies pointed out by the appellant, had already been provided to him. The commission also noted that the appellant demanded online hearings. It found that the appellant filed long handwritten RTI applications that were not clear. To avoid wastage of the commission's time and resources, the bench directed the appellant to appear personally before it. On the last date of hearing, the appellant again remained absent and sent a letter requesting an online hearing.
After hearing the respondent and reviewing the case file, the commission ascertained that appropriate replies and information had been provided to the appellant by the respondents. However, it observed that the appellant was "never satisfied" with the information provided by public authorities. The commission said his behaviour towards public authorities was not "conducive" to the working of the commission. "In fact, he is using RTI applications as a tool to create terror amongst the public authorities and to exploit them with some ulterior motives," it observed.
Habitual Filing of RTI Applications
The commission further observed that the appellant was habitual of filing RTI applications without realising the "practical difficulties" faced by public authorities. It said that although it was not incumbent upon public authorities to provide voluminous information demanded by him, they were still cooperating with the appellant and providing information at the cost of other important and time-bound cases in their hands.
Supreme Court Judgment Cited
The commission also cited a judgment of the Supreme Court of India, which observed that 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time collecting and furnishing information to applicants under the RTI Act. The apex court further observed that the Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising information furnishing at the cost of their normal and regular duties.
Disposal of the Case
The respondent requested withdrawal of the show-cause notice issued to the respondent PIO. Keeping in view the facts of the case, the commission dropped the show-cause notice. The commission held that the appeal was devoid of merit and closed and disposed of the case.
