Increasing Abuse Of RTI Act Has Led To Paralysis And Fear Among Government Officials: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has said that it has been coming across various cases where the abuse of Right to Information Act, 2005, has led to “paralysis and fear” among Government officials.

“The Act was brought into to provide for secure access to information to every citizen, and to prevent corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable. However, this Court is now seeing increasing abuse/misuse of the RTI Act…,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said.

It added that the purpose of the RTI Act is meant to further good governance and the unfortunate misuse of the same will only dilute its importance as well as make government servants dither from carrying out their activities.

“This Court has unfortunately been coming across various cases where abuse of RTI has led to paralysis and fear among Government officials,” the court said.

Justice Prasad was dealing with a plea moved by one Shishir Chand challenging an order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing its Registry not to entertain any further cases from him concerning the untimely demise of his younger brother on account of alleged medical negligence of one Dr. Atul Chhabra of Jamshedpur's Tata Memorial Hospital.

The CIC also rejected Chand's appeal against the CPIO's order and held that he had abused the process of Right to Information by making repeated attempts to reopen the same issue again and again.

A total of 15 RTI applications were filed by Chand seeking information about the doctor in question, amongst other details.

Calling it a classic case of misuse of RTI, Justice Prasad said that Chand was repeatedly trying to question the doctor's degree, despite a judicial order having held that the Doctor had requisite qualification, which had attained finality.

“A perusal of the queries raised in the RTI application reveals that the Petitioner has once again attempted to extract information regarding the findings and reasoning of the Ethics Committee rather than challenging the Order of the Ethics Committee. Undoubtedly, the Petitioner is abusing the Right to Information Act by repeatedly filing applications by either trying to ascertain the degree of Dr. Atul Chhabra, the issue which has already attained finality by the Orders of this Court as well as the Apex Court, or by trying to question the decision making process adopted by the Ethics Committee,” the court said.

Furthermore, the court also adjudicated on the question as to whether the CIC could have restrained Chand from making further queries under the RTI Act by directing its Registry not to entertain any further cases from him on the same subject matter.

Justice Prasad said though Chand has been abusing the process of RTI, it is the duty of the authorities to provide information and when the information stands provided then there is no necessity to provide the same information.

“However, if further information is sought, then the right of the person cannot be extinguished. In fact, the RTI Act does not provide for dismissal of an application with costs. Information which has already been furnished need not be furnished again, and the application can be rejected on this ground,” the court said.

It added that a citizen's right to claim information under RTI Act cannot be doused if further or fresh information is sought. The court further said that there is no provision in the enactment for imposing costs if information is sought repeatedly.

“In view of the above, this Court is, therefore, inclined to set aside the relevant portion of the Order of the Ld. CIC by which the Ld. CIC has directed the Central Registry of the Commission not to entertain any further cases from the Petitioner herein on the same subject matter,” the court said.

It added: “The Court is sympathetic to the pain of the Petitioner, however, the Petitioner is advised not to abuse the process of law by trying to seek the same information over and over again, thereby diluting the very objective of the Act. The Writ Petition is allowed in part.”

Title: SHISHIR CHAND v. THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1318

Click Here To Read Order