Editors Pick

Delhi HC imposes costs on RTI applicant for filing vague and irrelevant RTI queries

Ashok KM
22 Jan 2016 5:14 AM GMT
Delhi HC imposes costs on RTI applicant for filing vague and irrelevant RTI queries
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

Delhi High Court, in Shail Sahni vs. Valsa Sara Mathew, took an RTI applicant to task for filing vague and irrelevant RTI queries. Justice Man Mohan of Delhi High Court imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on the applicant who approached had High Court seeking compensation of 4 Lakhs.

The RTI applicant had approached the High Court challenging the CIC order refusing to intervene in denial of RTI replies to the queries she posed to Ministry of Defence. He submitted that CIC has committed an error in holding that Commission’s interference is not required in the matter.

The Court, after perusing the applications filed by him, opined that that they are general, wide, omnibus and vague. The Court also observed that the petitioner-applicant had approached High Court earlier too, in which the Court had dismissed his petition and observed “misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this “sunshine Act”. A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law”

Despite the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner is still filing general, irrelevant and vague queries, this Court dismisses the present writ petition with costs of Rs.25, 000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi within a period of three weeks, Justice Manmohan said.

However, the Court also observed that if the petitioner-applicant were to file a fresh application with the PIO prioritizing his requirement and identifying the precise information, the same shall be supplied.

Read the Judgment here.

Next Story
Share it