The Karnataka High Court declined to stay an order issued by the State Information Commissioner which had blacklisted a petitioner from seeking information under the Right to Information Act, observing that the petitioner’s voluminous use of the statute suggested potential misuse rather than legitimate public interest. The petitioner, who had filed 476 RTI requests, sought relief from the court to suspend that blacklisting order. He contended that his requests covered differing subjects and that the law permits an individual to file RTI applications without limitation. He also referenced a precedent where a similar blacklisting order was stayed by a court, invoking parity to argue his case should be treated likewise. The court, however, elected to first scrutinize the nature and content of the multitude of applications filed by him.
While placing the matter on notice to the State government and other respondents, the court directed the government advocate to present the specifics of the RTI applications submitted by the petitioner and the types of information sought. The bench, led by Justice Suraj Govindaraj, remarked that the sheer volume—476 applications—on first glance appeared “extraneous” and lent credence to the impression that the RTI Act was being manipulated rather than employed faithfully. The court made it clear that though the petitioner claimed a right to file those applications, that right must be exercised within reasonable bounds. It stated, “You cannot be filing 400 applications even if you are a public spirited person. You should know what you have to do, you cannot misuse this.”
In refusing the interim relief, the court expressed its unwillingness to allow what it deemed to be misuse of the RTI Act. It reserved its judgment on the blacklisting order itself, choosing to adjudicate on the merits after a fuller hearing. The case was posted for further hearing, with the next date set to examine the petitioner’s pattern of RTI filings and to evaluate whether the blacklisting order was justified under the relevant statutory and constitutional frameworks.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.