Read Time: 06 minutes

The Central Information Commission recently slammed a man who had sought response from the Prime Minister Office to his queries under the Right to Information Act regarding declaration of the Saka Calendar as National Calendar, disappearance of certain photographs from the original copy of the Constitution, country’s cow beef and veal export, India’s alleged status as a dominion of British Empire and role of Indian National Army in country’s freedom struggle etc.

A bench of the commission comprising Chief Information Commissioner Y.K. Sinha observed, "The Appellant is advised to strictly refrain in future from seeking information under the RTI Act by filing such applications on multiple unrelated issues before offices which do not possess the relevant information.”

In addition to this, the bench noted, “As much as a CPIO (Central Public Information Officer) has a statutory responsibility of complying with the provisions of the RTI Act, it is also expected of the RTI Applicant/s to not undermine the spirit of the RTI Act by clogging the system with such a barrage of RTI applications, merely claiming that these are aimed at combatting corruption."

Further, depreciating man's attempts to justify his act, the bench stressed, "Even if the Commission were to reluctantly acknowledge that this is an attempt on the Appellant’s part to fight corruption, the means adopted by him stifle and defeat the very purpose of the RTI Act."

The bench, therefore, said that "Instead of filing the RTI application with the PMO (Prime Minister Office) the man should have filed it with the concerned Public Authority being the custodian of information as any person of ordinary prudence may believe that the said information would not be available with the PMO."

Essentially, the Commission was dealing with a second appeal filed by one Naresh Kadyan, an alleged activist, against the response he had received from the CPIO, PMO on one of his online RTI applications dated April 24, 2020. 

Kadyan had argued that the issues raised by him pertained to the larger public interest which should have been answered by the PMO instead of denying him the information on the ground that multiple issues were clubbed in a single RTI application.

The PMO, in response to Kadyan's RTI application, had stated that the information sought by him related to multiple Public Authorities and, therefore, he should seek information individually from concerned offices.

Considering facts of the matter, the Commission concluded that Kadyan's act was nothing but misuse of the RTI Act in the garb of public interest. Therefore, asking Kadyan to refrain from such practice in future, the Commission dismissed his appeal. 

Cause Title: Shri Naresh Kadyan vs PIO, PMO