Right to information (RTI) applicant Shiv Kumar Kanoi, who filed over 100 RTI applications including 65 from January to December 2024 to the Central Bank of India’s Kolkata and Mumbai branches, with the same number of first appeals and second appeals, was reprimanded with all his appeals being dismissed by the central information commission, last week, on 28 April 2025.
In a scathing order, central information commissioner (CIC) Anandi Ramalingam, slamming the RTI applicant’s repetitive and baseless filings, dismissed the cluster of fresh second appeals amounting to 65 in number, stating that the directive was essential to conserve public resources and curb misuse of the RTI Act.
This decision comes as a sequel to an earlier CIC order of 24 March 2025, when 86 second appeals filed by the RTI applicant Kanoi to the Central Bank of India, on the same issue, had been dismissed. In that March order too, the CIC had noted that the appeals “revolved around the same subject matter, same grievance, and same overlapping nature of RTI applications—issues already heard and repeatedly adjudicated upon.”
Qualifying the rejection of all his 65 second appeals during the 28th April CIC hearing, Ms Ramalingam stated in her order that she was doing so, “to save the precious resources of time and the expenses incurred on the public exchequer to engage the respondent(s) on the same subject matter for over a 100th time with no scope of any conclusive outcome which is amenable to the mandate of the RTI Act.”
If this were not enough, in another CIC order dated 20 December 2023, the CIC had sternly cautioned RTI applicant Kanoi against filing redundant and vexatious RTI applications. Despite this, CIC Ramalingam noted that several of the recent appeals were based on applications submitted after the 2023 order, with the same subject matter.
RTI applicant Kanoi’s continuous RTI applications sought clarifications on the same longstanding grievance concerning alleged non-compliance with lease terms by the Central Bank of India’s Beliaghata branch in Kolkata. Besides, the information sought by him included illegal occupation by the bank and general grievances against top executives of the bank. Hence, CIC Ramalingam described them as 'absurd' and 'incoherent', adding that instead of seeking information within the framework of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, Mr Kanoi used to “vent personal frustrations and pursue unrelated legal claims” and, therefore, the commission can no more show empathy as it had done earlier.
CIC Ramalingam’s ire can be gauged from the fact that before she dismissed the 65 second appeals, she mentioned in her order that “for the sake of brevity and finding futility in repeating and rephrasing the same observations against the similar cases of the appellant over and over again, the commission is not inclined to quote any detailed references of the cases decided earlier. The parties are at liberty to access these records from the archives of the commission available here at cic.gov.in.”
Information sought by RTI applicant, as noted in the CIC order:
- RTI applicant Kanoi wanted information on serious accusations against Matam Venkata Rao, MD & CEO of the Central Bank of India, alleging misuse of authority and unethical conduct.
- According to the CIC order, “the applicant claimed that Rao attempted to suppress repeated defaults, violated RBI guidelines, and was involved in the preparation of forged and illegal documents.
- That Mr Rao issued false, baseless, and misleading information in response to complaints addressed to high offices, including the prime minister’s office (PMO), Reserve Bank of India (RBI), ministry of finance (MoF), ministry of state (MoS), central vigilance commission (CVC), CPGRAMS, department of financial services (DEABD), and PMOPG. Despite being served with legal notices and RTI applications, the applicant alleged that there was no response from the MD & CEO or the bank.
- The appellant has seemingly approached DFS, RBI & CVC to convey the same grievances that he has been pursuing directly against Central Bank of India since eons and therefore these cases at hand bring no change to the merits or the narrative of his RTI applications or appeal(s) heard and decided till date. In other words, the commission finds no reason to decide any of the CPIO’s replies or FAA’s action/ inaction on merits in these set of cases as well.
(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".)