Delhi High Court: Petitioner seeks to challenge the Order dated 19-08-2021, passed by the Central Information Commission (‘CIC’), rejecting the appeal filed by petitioner and further directing the Registry of the Commission not to entertain any further cases from petitioner on the same subject matter on the ground that petitioner had abused the process of Right to Information (‘RTI’). Subramonium Prasad, J.*, opined that petitioner had not sought for the same information but had only sought further information, and therefore, the CIC ought not to have passed the direction to the Central Registry of the Commission to not entertain any further cases from petitioner on the same subject matter. The Court thus set aside the relevant portion of the CIC’s order by which the CIC had directed the Central Registry of the Commission to not entertain any further cases from petitioner on the same subject matter.
Background
Petitioner filed an RTI application on 01-05-2019 seeking information relating to the Minutes of Meetings of Ethics Committee that took up the present appeal during its meeting held on 16-11-2018 with deliberations/discussions/findings of the Ethics Committee. The Central Public Information Officer (‘CPIO’) by Order dated 11-06-2019 furnished reply to petitioner, attaching a copy of the Minutes of Meeting of the Ethics Sub-Committee. Dissatisfied with CPIO’s response, petitioner filed the First Appeal on 17-06-2019 and during the pendency of the First Appeal, petitioner approached the CIC by filing a Second Appeal.
The CIC opined that the information sought in the present case arose due to untimely demise of petitioner’s younger brother on account of alleged medical negligence of Atul Chhabra of Tata Memorial Hospital, Jamshedpur. The CIC enumerated the list of RTI applications filed by petitioner and the repeated attempts on petitioner’s part to reopen the same issue repeatedly and held that the decisions already adjudicated by the CIC with respect to the same subject matter were considered from all aspects by the CIC and substantial amount of information was made available to petitioner. It was held that since the ambit of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’) was restricted to ensure access to information from existing public records, the CIC found that enough relief under the RTI Act was explored. The CIC opined that a trial of medical negligence could not be held through the process of RTI, therefore, the CIC directed the Registry not to entertain any further cases from petitioner on the same subject matter.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that the RTI Act was brought out with the laudable objective of bringing about transparency in the Government’s functioning. The Act was brought to secure access to information for every citizen, prevent corruption and hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable. However, this Court was now seeing increasing abuse/misuse of the RTI Act, and this case was a classic case of abuse of the RTI. The purpose of the RTI Act was meant to further good governance, and unfortunate misuse of the same would only dilute its importance as well as make government servants dither from carrying out their activities. It would also prevent doctors from taking steps in emergent situations fearing the consequences of the same. This Court was unfortunately coming across various cases where abuse of RTI had led to paralysis and fear among Government officials.
The Court noted the queries raised in the RTI application revealed that petitioner once again attempted to extract information regarding the findings and reasoning of the Ethics Committee rather than challenging the Order of the Ethics Committee. The Court opined that undoubtedly, petitioner was abusing the RTI Act by repeatedly filing applications by either trying to ascertain the degree of Atul Chhabra, the issue which had already attained finality or by trying to question the decision-making process adopted by the Ethics Committee.
The issue for consideration before this Court was “whether the CIC could restrain petitioner from making further queries under the RTI Act by directing the Central Registry of the CIC not to entertain any further cases from petitioner on the same subject matter?”.
The Court opined that though petitioner was abusing the RTI process, it was the duty of the authorities to provide information and when the information stands provided then there was no necessity to provide the same information and the application could be rejected on this ground. However, if further information was sought, then the right of the person could not be extinguished.
The Court further opined that the RTI Act provided for payment of costs by public authority if any loss was caused or any other detriment was suffered by the complainant or if the CIC or the State Information Commission, without any reasonable cause, failed to receive an application for information or had not furnished information within the time specified or had given incorrect/incomplete/misleading/destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information. The Court further stated that there was no provision for imposing costs if information was sought repeatedly.
The Court opined that in the present case, petitioner had not sought for the same information but had only sought further information, and therefore, the CIC ought not to have passed the direction to the Central Registry of the Commission to not entertain any further cases from petitioner on the same subject matter.
The Court thus set aside the relevant portion of the Order of the CIC by which the CIC had directed the Central Registry of the Commission to not entertain any further cases from petitioner on the same subject matter. The Court showed its sympathy to petitioner’s pain; however, it advised petitioner to not abuse the process of law by trying to seek the same information repeatedly, thereby diluting the very objective of the RTI Act.
[Shishir Chand v. Central Information Commission, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8108, decided on 19-12-2023]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Petitioner-in-Person
For the Respondents: Rakesh Kumar, CGSC; Sunil, T Singhdev, Tanishq Srivastava, Abhijit Chakravarty, Bhanu Gulati, Anum Hussain, Aabhaas Sukhramani, Ramanpreet Kaur, Advocates
