CIC Dismisses Vexatious RTI Appeals: Repetitive Queries Found Harassing, Not in Public Interest

CIC Puts an End to "Unending Stream" of RTI Applications: Appeals Dismissed as Vexatious

In a firm ruling aimed at discouraging the misuse of transparency laws, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has dismissed a massive batch of second appeals filed by an former employee against the Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India (SPMCIL). Commissioner Anandi Ramalingam, ruling on the matter, categorized the appellant's conduct as a transparent attempt to harass the public authority rather than a genuine pursuit of public interest.

A History of Litigation

The appellant, Satish Ashok Sherkhane, has been engaged in a protracted service dispute following his dismissal from service years ago. Since then, he has filed an unprecedented number of RTI applications targeting various units of the SPMCIL across India—including the India Government Mint in Mumbai, Kolkata, Noida, and Hyderabad, as well as the Currency Note Press in Nashik.

The instant case, involving multiple clubbed appeals, centered on queries regarding file notings, caste verification reports, and administrative approvals related to his past disciplinary proceedings. The respondents maintained that the requested information was either "voluminous," pertained to the personal sensitive records of third-party employees (invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act), or had already been addressed in previous, exhaustive responses.

The Commission's Legal Reasoning

The Commission’s decision relied heavily on established precedents rejecting the abuse of the RTI Act. Commissioner Anandi Ramalingam noted that the appellant was a "cantankerous, disgruntled employee" who was using the RTI Act as a tool for personal vendetta.

By invoking the principle of constructive res judicata —a doctrine usually reserved for civil litigation—the CIC held that an applicant cannot continue to file piecemeal requests to revisit the same subject matter once a full opportunity for disclosure has been provided. The order underscored that while transparency is a pillar of governance, it cannot be weaponized to cripple the functioning of a public institution.

Key Observations

The Commission’s order offered a blunt assessment of the appellant's tactics:

• "The appellant is a cantankerous, disgruntled employee who is trying to harass the public authority by filing numerous RTI application asking for all and sundry information due to the fact that he was dismissed from service."
• "Confidentiality of note-files, therefore, is an entirely wholesome principle conducive to good governance. Any compromise with objectivity in processing matters extant in the file, is potentially damaging to governance."
• "Cases of disclosure of information to the repetitive applicants for their private purpose which promotes their private interest but no the public interest would cause substantial harm to the legitimate aim of the Right to Information Act."

A Final Warning

The Commission’s decision concludes that the current applications are merely an extension of previous vexatious filings, all of which have been summarily dismissed in the past.

Noting that "repeated or unending stream of questions" serves no public interest, the CIC has warned the appellant against further misuse of the law. The Commission has effectively signaled that transparency mechanisms are designed to keep the government accountable, not to provide an endless arena for workplace retribution. The appeals were dismissed without further merit-based consideration, firmly closing the door on this specific sequence of litigation.