RTI Act Cannot Be Used for Grievance Redressal or Harassment: Central Information Commission

RTI Act Not a Tool for Grievance Redressal, Rules Central Information Commission

In a stern observation regarding the misuse of transparency statues, the Central Information Commission (CIC) recently dismissed a second appeal filed by Ajit Singh against the Delhi Police. The Commission underscored that the Right to Information (RTI) Act is designed to provide access to existing records and is not a forum for settling personal grievances.

The Backdrop of the Dispute

The appellant, Ajit Singh, had filed an RTI application on September 16, 2024, seeking information on 16 specific points related to various internal departmental communications, vigilance reports, and action-taken updates regarding the Delhi Police’s Dwarka District and Vigilance units. Despite multiple responses provided by the Public Information Officers (PIOs) of the Delhi Police Headquarters, the Vigilance Branch, and the Dwarka District, the appellant remained unsatisfied, claiming the information was incomplete or misleading.

The matter escalated through the layers of the RTI grievance mechanism before reaching the CIC.

Arguments from the Fold

The Delhi Police maintained that throughout the process, the appellant had been provided with all extractable records available under the provisions of the RTI Act-2005. The respondents highlighted that for aspects involving personal grievances or non-recordable information, the appellant was guided according to the scope of public records under Section 2(f) of the Act.

During the hearing, the respondent departments demonstrated that they had provided all available notesheets, investigation reports, and relevant correspondence. Most crucially, when the respondents offered the appellant a compiled set of documents yet again during the proceedings, the appellant refused to accept them.

Defining the Boundaries of the RTI Act

The Central Information Commissioner, Raj Kumar Goyal, observed that the appellant’s conduct during the hearing—specifically the refusal to accept the documents made available to him—raised significant questions regarding the true intent behind the application.

The Commission clarified that a PIO is only empowered to provide information existing in the form of material in the records of the public authority. It is not the job of the RTI machinery to act as a tribunal for the resolution of complaints, nor is the Commission a supervisory body for internal police investigations.

Key Observations

The Commission’s ruling emphasized the limit of judicial and administrative intervention in such cases:

• "लूपूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम f”kdk;r fuokj.k dk Qksje ugha gSA" (The Right to Information Act is not a forum for grievance redressal.)
• "लूपूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम के प्रावधानाkas d s अंतर्xत dsUnzh; lwpuk का कार् lacaf/kr izkf/kdj.k ls lwpuk iznku djokuk ek= gSA" (Under the provisions of the RTI Act, the work of the Central Information Commission is merely to ensure that information is provided by the concerned authority.)
• "लूपूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम की धारा 2(f) के प्रावधानाkas ds अंतर्xत, एक tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh lacaf/kr izkf/kdj.k d s fjdkMZ eas ,d lkexzh ds :Ik ea s miyC/k lwpuk gh iznku dj ldrk gSA" (Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, a Public Information Officer can only provide information that is available as material in the records of the concerned authority.)

Final Verdict: A Case of Abuse?

The CIC concluded that in the opinion of the Commission, the appellant showed no genuine interest in obtaining information, as evidenced by his refusal to accept the documents during the hearings. Consequently, the Commission viewed the filing of this appeal as an abuse of the RTI Act.

By disposing of the case without further orders, the CIC has effectively signaled that transparency laws should not be weaponized to harass public officials or to bypass standard grievance redressal avenues. For future litigants, the ruling serves as a reminder that the Commission’s limited mandate is the disclosure of information, not the adjudication of underlying disputes.