Court Emphasizes Responsible Use of RTI, Dismisses Repeated Applications as Potential Misuse
In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court, presided over by Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak, has dismissed the petition filed by Himanshu Parsottambhai Parmar seeking further action on repeated Right to Information (RTI) applications. The petitioner, acting in person, had challenged the Gujarat Information Commission’s decision, which he claimed provided incomplete and unsupported information regarding reservation policies and temporary teaching posts.
The petitioner filed multiple RTI applications to obtain information on temporary teaching positions and reservation policies at The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda and other government departments. Dissatisfied with the responses, Parmar pursued legal recourse, citing incomplete information provided by the Public Information Officer (PIO) and alleging non-compliance with the RTI Act.
The court considered previous judgments, including the Delhi High Court's decision in Narendra Tyagi vs. Assistant Director (CPIO), reinforcing that RTI forums are not venues for adjudicating disputes over the correctness of the provided information. The court reiterated that the PIO's responsibility is limited to providing accessible information under the RTI Act, and does not extend to evaluating the accuracy of such information.
Justice Prachchhak emphasized that the courts and RTI bodies are not designed to adjudicate the correctness of the information supplied under the RTI Act. The court noted that repeated RTI applications on the same issue could be deemed a misuse of the Act, thus supporting the Information Commission’s stance against the petitioner’s persistent applications.
The judgment also highlighted the definition of 'information' under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which includes any material accessible to a public authority under any law. The court affirmed that the PIO had fulfilled his duty by providing all such accessible information, dismissing the petitioner's claim for original documents as beyond the scope of the RTI Act.
The petitioner’s demand for compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act was also rejected, with the court discharging the notice and imposing no costs on either party. This judgment underscores the necessity of responsible use of the RTI Act and clarifies the boundaries of information officers' duties, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.
Bottom line:-
Right to Information Act does not allow forums under the RTI Act to adjudicate disputes regarding the correctness of information provided. The responsibility of the Public Information Officer (PIO) is discharged upon providing all accessible information as per the RTI Act. Repeated RTI applications on the same matter may be deemed as misuse of the Act.
Statutory provision(s): Right to Information Act, 2005 Sections 2(f), 19(8)(b), 226
Himanshu Parsottambhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat, (Gujarat) : Law Finder Doc id # 2902652
