CIC Dismisses Batch of Vexatious RTI Appeals from Dismissed Employee, Citing Principle of 'Constructive Res Judicata'

The Perpetual Petitioner vs. The Mint: When RTI Becomes a Tool for Harassment

In a significant ruling aimed at curbing the abuse of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has dismissed a massive batch of second appeals filed by Satish Ashok Sherkhane, a former employee of the India Government Mint (IGM), Mumbai. The decision, delivered by Hon’ble Commissioner Anandi Ramalingam, effectively bars the appellant from further pestering the Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India (SPMCIL) with repetitive and frivolous inquiries.

The Case of the Infinite Appeals

The appellant, having been dismissed from service by SPMCIL, had embarked on a campaign of filing hundreds of RTI applications across various units of the Corporation. These applications sought granular, often redundant information regarding caste certificate verifications, departmental promotion committee proceedings, and various internal performance reports.

The Respondent Public Authorities—IGM Mumbai, the Corporate Office, and several other printing and minting units—had consistently denied the requests, citing that the information was either personal and exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, nonexistent, or that the requests were repetitive and aimed at harassing the infrastructure of the organization.

The Commission’s Verdict: Enough is Enough

Refusing to be drawn into a never-ending cycle of litigation, the CIC underscored that the appellant’s actions were no longer a pursuit of transparency but a clear case of professional harassment. The Commission relied heavily on the precedent of Ramesh Chand Jain v. DTC , invoking the principle of "constructive res judicata."

The CIC held that an RTI applicant is expected to seek all relevant information on a particular subject during their first encounter. Allowing a stream of "bit-by-bit" questions, which merely rephrase or rehash previously resolved grievances, serves only to drain the resources of public offices without providing any meaningful public benefit.

Key Observations

In a stinging rebuke of the appellant’s conduct, the CIC noted:

• "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... He is in the habit of providing bald arguments having no substance or relevance with the information sought."
• "The above-listed appeals are therefore dismissed without going into the merits as they are considered multiple and vexatious with a focus on harassing the public authority."
• "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."

Practical Implications

The Commission’s decision serves as a stern warning: the RTI Act is a weapon for democratic transparency, not a shield for those seeking personal retribution against former employers. By dismissing these appeals, the CIC has set a vital precedent that public authorities are not obligated to entertain unending streams of inquiries from litigants who have already exhausted their claims before the legal system. For future petitioners, this confirms that while the right to information is protected, it is subject to the boundaries of common sense and the functional efficiency of the state.