Recently, the newly-appointed state chief information commissioner (SCIC) of Maharashtra, Rahul Pande, at a public event, expressed grave concern about a handful of individuals filing multiple RTI applications on the same issue, thus spiking the number of second appeal pendency.
If you go through the central information commission (CIC)’s website
www.cic.gov.in , undoubtedly, the clusters of second appeal/ complaints being disposed of, filed by individuals on the same issue, is surely on the rise.
While RTI applicants are hauled up for excessive RTI applications on the same issue by information commissioners; how about the latter putting pressure on public authorities to ensure pro-active disclosures under Section 4 of the RTI Act? A step, which SCIC Pande has taken up, he claims in right earnest, soon after he took charge as SCIC.
Last week, on 22nd May, another RTI applicant, Rachpal Singh Saini, got a rap on his knuckles by CIC Heeralal Samariya. He emphasised in his order that, while the RTI Act empowers citizens to seek information as a means to ensure transparency and accountability, the right is not absolute or without limits. He observed that “any right cannot be unbounded or aimless,” and that “it must be exercised with responsibility and in line with the broader objectives of the parent statute.”
Accusing RTI applicant Saini of not only diverting public resources but also hampering the functioning of the concerned public authority, he remarked that “The right to information is a cherished and formidable tool in the hands of a sensitive citizenry, but its misuse dilutes the very essence of transparency.”
CIC Samariya further reiterated that a single information-seeker cannot monopolise institutional mechanisms at the expense of other citizens who hold equal rights to information. “The adjudication system must not be clogged by indiscriminate and unchecked cases that impair its ability to serve genuine seekers,” he stated.
How about CICs putting pressure on the public authorities to abide by mandatory suo motu disclosures under Section 4 of the RTI Act?
Time and again, RTI experts, scholars and activists have reiterated that, in order to stop such multiple RTI applications by one individual and in order to dismiss the stance taken by public authorities that RTI is used for blackmailing, all that the heads of public authorities have to do is to upload maximum information that comes under Section 4 of the RTI Act, from time to time. This would also dip RTI applications that are filed under section 6 of the RTI Act by 90%, as per former CIC and RTI activist Shailesh Gandhi.
In fact, a Supreme Court order of 17 August 2023 had ordered that “…we direct that the central information commission and the state information commissions shall continuously monitor the implementation of the mandate of section 4 of the Act as also prescribed by the department of personnel and training in its guidelines and memorandums issued from time to time. The directions will also include instructions under O.M. dated 07.11.2019 issued by the department.
So, what did RTI applicant Saini ask under the RTI Act to AIIMS, Rishikesh?
Mr Saini sought CCTV data via an (RTI) application filed on 13 February 2024, to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Rishikesh.
He requested comprehensive details regarding the installation, specifications, maintenance and cost of CCTV camera systems at AIIMS Rishikesh and all other AIIMS institutions across India. The request covered academic and hospital areas, backup duration, vendor details, cost breakdowns and tender processes from the inception of the installations to date.
The details of the RTI application of Mr Saini are as follows:
Specific information requested:
- Number of CCTV Cameras: Please provide the total number of CCTV cameras installed at AIIMS Rishikesh and each individual AIIMS across India, including both academic areas and hospital facilities (inside and outside). Separate figures for academic and hospital areas are preferred.
- CCTV Recording Backup: State the current duration for which CCTV recordings are stored on your servers at AIIMS Rishikesh and each individual AIIMS. Please clarify the specific government guidelines that mandate the data retention period for CCTV recordings at AIIMS institutions.
- Installation and Maintenance: Disclose the name of the company responsible for installing and maintaining the CCTV systems at AIIMS Rishikesh and all other AIIMS institutions.
All this above information, by the way, comes under Section 4 of the RTI Act and the AIIMS of all zones should have put up this information without any RTI applicant having to request it under section 6 of the RTI Act.
The CPIO’s argument at the CIC hearing:
- The CPIO accused Mr Saini of adopting a "strange and unwarranted practice" of persistently emailing various RTI and first appeal queries while marking copies to high-ranking officials in Central and state governments, AIIMS authorities, and even Union ministers—individuals with no direct involvement in the RTI process. The respondent contended that this mode of communication contravenes the established legal procedures outlined in the RTI Act and the rules governing the filing of appeals.
- The CPIO of AIIMS Rishikesh revealed that Mr Saini had filed over 203 RTI applications and 144 first appeals, many of which were either repetitive or frivolous.
(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife. She is also the convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting, which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain Award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book "To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte" with Vinita Kamte and is the author of "The Mighty Fall".)
