Back
Draws Clear Lines on RTI Powers
The has firmly closed the door on using as a battleground for questioning the accuracy or completeness of answers already given. In a judgment delivered on , Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak dismissed a filed by petitioner Himanshu Parsottambhai Parmar, holding that the does not empower information-seekers to demand original documents or litigate factual disputes through the information route.
A Persistent Flow of RTI Queries
The petitioner, appearing in person, had filed repeated RTI applications targeting . His queries centred on reservation compliance for temporary teaching posts advertised for the academic year. He sought detailed category-wise data, lists of selected and non-selected candidates, details of the selection committee, and information on how sanctioned posts were converted into contractual appointments. When responses from the proved unsatisfactory in his view, he approached the and later filed the present petition after the Commission’s order was implemented only partially, in his opinion.
When Information Suffices, Further Disputes Must End
Justice Prachchhak examined the record and found that the university had already supplied the information directed by the Commission. The petitioner’s continued insistence on original documents and on re-verifying every detail fell outside the . The court observed that once a public authority provides material that is accessible to it, its obligations under the stand discharged. Insistence on originals or on adjudicating alleged inaccuracies converts RTI proceedings into a , something the Act never envisaged.
Reliance on Precedent
The bench drew direct support from the ’s decision in . That judgment had clarified that RTI proceedings “cannot be converted into proceedings for .” Justice Prachchhak applied the same principle, noting that the petitioner’s grievance about misleading or incomplete replies should be pursued in appropriate forums dealing with reservation or employment disputes, not through further RTI appeals.
Key Observations Captured from the Bench
The court quoted the earlier Delhi ruling with approval:
“The proceedings under the do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects… the question as to what inference if any is to be drawn… is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished.”
Justice Prachchhak added that the definition of “information” under includes records, documents and data held in any electronic form. Supply of such material, not forensic verification of its truth, is the CPIO’s duty.
Practical Message for RTI Users and Authorities
The dismissal sends a clear signal both to frequent RTI applicants and to information officers. Applicants cannot weaponise the RTI process to settle larger grievances or to demand originals when copies have been furnished. At the same time, public authorities must ensure that the information supplied is drawn from official records and is provided within statutory timelines.
The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, bringing to an end one chapter in a long sequence of RTI requests concerning contractual appointments and reservation policy at the university.
This ruling aligns with the observation carried in companion reporting that “RTI Applicant Cannot Insist On Original Documents Once Accessible Records Are Supplied By CPIO.” The has now given that principle authoritative judicial backing within the state.
