Chhattisgarh High Court Modifies Judgment In RTI Case, Substitutes 'Bombarded' & 'Habitual Information Seeker' With Neutral Expressions
The Chhattisgarh High Court has modified its earlier judgment by substituting the expressions "habitual information seeker" and "bombarded" with the more neutral expressions "regular information seeker" and "placed on the PIO". The Court observed that although the earlier expressions were not intended to create an adverse impression and were merely observations, substituting them would...
The Chhattisgarh High Court has modified its earlier judgment by substituting the expressions "habitual information seeker" and "bombarded" with the more neutral expressions "regular information seeker" and "placed on the PIO". The Court observed that although the earlier expressions were not intended to create an adverse impression and were merely observations, substituting them would maintain neutrality without affecting the substance of the judgment.
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad was hearing a review petition seeking modification of an order passed in a writ petition challenging the decision of the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission imposing penalty under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In the earlier judgment, while setting aside the Commission's order, the Court had observed that the respondent "is a habitual information seeker" and that four RTI applications filed on the same day had "bombarded" the Public Information Officer seeking information substantially connected with the same subject matter.
The review petitioner contended that these observations were neither necessary for deciding the writ petition nor supported by any evidence. It was submitted that merely because four RTI applications had been filed on the same day could not justify branding the applicant as a "habitual information seeker", particularly when each application sought different categories of information under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. The petitioner further submitted that filing separate RTI applications for different sets of records is neither prohibited by the RTI Act nor indicative of abuse of the statutory mechanism.
Upon considering the submissions and examining the record, the Court observed that the expressions "habitual information seeker" and "bombarded" were not necessary and were merely observations, as the relevant sentences began with the expressions "it seems" and "it is noticeable". However, to maintain neutrality, the Court held that substituting those expressions would do no harm to the order.
“… the expressions "habitual information seeker" and "bombarded" employed in paragraph 30 were not necessary for the intended adverse impression… however, in order to maintain neutrality, this Court is of the opinion that substituting the said words would do no harm to the order,” the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court directed that the expression "habitual information seeker" be substituted with "regular information seeker" and the word "bombarded" be substituted with "placed on the PIO".
Case Title: Nitin Singhvi v. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission & Ors. [REVP No. 199 of 2026]