Varun Krishna v. Central Information Commission

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 05.08.2019 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) which, inter alia directs as under:- “Adverting to the aforesaid observations, Commission has considered the instant cases on their merits and observes that in all the cases appropriate reply has been provided by the respective CPIO(s) leaving no further scope of intervention. **** Thus, the menace caused by vexatious/frivolous litigants is well recognised and if similar obstruction is faced by quasi-judicial bodies particularly with respect to statutes like the RTI Act, which is premised on bringing transparency and accountability in government functioning for the larger good of the public, it is only axiomatic that such misuse ought to be curbed. When we speak of the enormity of public interest entailed in the enactment of RTI Act, it is prudent to hold that in disposing of the multitude of perceived grievances based RTI Applications/First Appeals/Second Appeals filed by the Appellant, the public Authorities and the Commission will invariably delay action on the RTI Applications and Appeals filed by other citizens and when we juxtapose the interest of these two categories of citizens exercising their right to information, the interest of the other category will outweigh the interests of such frivolous RTI Applicants.”

2. The aforesaid directions have been issued by the CIC in the context of the peculiar circumstances of the case wherein a plethora of RTI Applications, running into several thousands in number, have been filed by the same petitioner.

3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents have given a list of the pending second appeals. It transpires that as many as 2443 second appeals have been filed by the petitioner.

4. The conduct of the petitioner is a textbook case which illustrates systematic misuse of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The number of applications submitted by the petitioner is so huge that it has effectively consumed enormous time and resources of the First Appellate Authority and well as that of the CIC. The menance, and the mischief inherent in such conduct has been taken note of by the Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) v. Aditya Bandhyopadhyay & Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 497 wherein the following observations were made:

interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of Governments, etc.).

67. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquillity and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising “information furnishing”, at the cost of their normal and regular duties.”

5. Vide order/judgment dated 17.09.014, passed in Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) v. The Central Information Commission and Anr., W.P.No.26781 of 2013, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court has observed as under –

28. In fact, the first respondent-Commission itself has deprecated the practice of the second respondent herein in overloading the Registry of this Court by making several queries or complaints one after another and following the same under the RTI Act. Having found that the action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest, the first respondent-Commission clearly erred in passing the impugned order in this Writ Petition, directing the petitioner to furnish the details to the second respondent as well as sending a tabular statement listing all the complaints and representations received from the second respondent.

6. In Shail Sahni v. Sanjeev Kumar And Ors, 2014:DHC:708, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under – “10….This Court is also of the view that 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. A copy of this order is directed to be sent by the Registry to Defence and Law Ministry, so that they may examine the aspect of misuse of this Act, which confers very important and valuable rights upon a citizen.”

7. The impugned order takes note of the legal position as enunciated by the Supreme Court in CBSE v. Aditya Bandhyopadhyay (supra) and also takes note of the fact that, apart from filing RTI Applications, the petitioner has been indiscriminately sending representations to various Constitutional Authorities as well expressing his apparent lack of faith in justice delivery mechanism. The impugned order also takes note of the legal position and the nuisance caused by the petitioner’s conduct.

8. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the conclusion drawn in the impugned order. The present petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to forthwith request the CIC to grant him a hearing in the context of any future RTI application, it shall be for the CIC to consider any such request on its own merits.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has counselled his client to refrain from indulging in the aforesaid conduct and to limit the number of RTI Applications being filed by him.

10. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending application also stands disposed of.

DECEMBER 4, 2025/uk SACHIN DATTA, J