Repetitive and Vexatious RTI Appeals Dismissed: CIC Cites Constructive Res Judicata in Sherkhane vs. SPMCIL - 2025-09-24

RTI Abuse: CIC Puts an End to Endless Litigation in Sherkhane v. SPMCIL

In a significant order highlighting the limits of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has summarily dismissed a massive batch of second appeals filed by Satish Ashok Sherkhane against the Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India (SPMCIL) and its various units. Information Commissioner Anandi Ramalingam, presiding over the case, characterized the appellant’s conduct as an attempt to harass the public authority through a "stream of continuous, unending questions."

The "Never-Ending" Stream of Appeals

The dispute stems from a long-standing grievance of the appellant, a former employee of the India Government Mint in Mumbai who was dismissed from service. Since his dismissal, Sherkhane has filed over 300 RTI applications seeking exhaustive, often repetitive information spanning various departments, timeframes, and officials.

While the appellant maintained that he was seeking vital documentary evidence for his ongoing legal battles—including proceedings before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) and the Special Court for Atrocity—the Commission viewed the applications differently. The instant case involved a consolidated hearing of multiple appeals where the appellant demanded internal file notings, employee signatures, and action taken reports regarding caste verification processes and disciplinary proceedings.

The Commission’s Legal Stance

The CIC’s ruling centers on the principle of "constructive res judicata" in the RTI context. Relying on the precedent set in Ramesh Chand Jain vs. DTC , the Commission observed:

> "The universal principles of civil justice also recognized 'constructive res judicata' which in the RTI context means when an applicant uses an opportunity of obtaining information on a particular subject as per law, he is expected to seek all the related information in that first ever opportunity itself."

The Commission further noted that the appellant's strategy of filing multiple RTI requests across different units of the same parent organization was deliberately designed to divert the meagre resources of the public authority and interfere with its day-to-day functioning.

Key Observations from the Order

The CIC did not mince words regarding the pattern of the appellant's behavior:

• On the nature of the filings: "The Commission... observes that 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... the instant cases... are considered multiple and vexatious with a focus on harassing the public authority."
• On repetitive litigation: "The Commission noticed that several applicants seek some information from one wing of the public authority and based on the responses file a bunchy of RTI questions... This will have a continuous harassing effect on the public Authority."
• On previous warnings: "The Appellant is reminded that filing the same request with the CPIO by a mere inter play of words will not change the narrative of the case which has been already decided by the Commission."

Final Verdict: A Closing Door

The Commission dismissed the appeals without delving into the individual merits of each RTI query, noting the clear pattern of harassment. The order serves as a stark warning to habitual litigants using the RTI Act as a tool for score-settling rather than legitimate information gathering.

For SPMCIL, the decision provides a welcome respite, affirming that once a public authority has provided substantive responses to a specific subject matter, it is not obligated to entertain an "unending stream" of subsequent, rephrased queries that aim to relitigate settled matters. Future appeals on the same subject matter by the appellant, the Commission cautioned, are "liable to be summarily dismissed."