Back
Rules RTI Applicant Vala Jodhubhai Golanbhai Cannot Bring Companion for Inspection
The has ruled that an RTI applicant who is not conversant with the language or contents of the requested information cannot bring another person along for inspection of records, as that would effectively amount to supplying the information to a third party.
A single bench of Justice Nirzar S. Desai on , quashed the appellate order rejecting the of Vala Jodhubhai Golanbhai , a 74-year-old resident of Nagadla, Gir, and gave him one more opportunity to inspect the records—provided he goes alone.
When a Records Inspection Turned Hostile
Golanbhai had sought information from the through the , and wanted the records inspected with the help of Form K. The appellate authority, however, dismissed his in Appeal No. A/6465 of 2025 by order dated , after recording a heated sequence of events.
According to that order, when Golanbhai visited the panchayat office, he was accompanied by six to seven persons and insisted that the Talati-cum-Mantri show the records to all of them. When the lady official refused, it was alleged that the group misbehaved with her. The situation escalated when she began recording the incident on her mobile phone and said she would call the police; the group then left, allegedly after threatening her.
An Undertaking With a Contested Clause
Before the High Court, Golanbhai’s counsel, , tendered an in which the petitioner promised to behave cordially, carry no electronic devices, avoid causing disturbance, and be accompanied by a person conversant with the language and contents of the information.
That last clause drew strong opposition from , counsel for respondent No. 3. He argued that if Golanbhai himself needed a companion to understand the records, allowing one would effectively mean revealing the information to someone outside the RTI process.
Justice Desai found merit in that objection.
“Merely Acting as a Pawn for a Third Party”
The court’s pivotal observation was direct:
“Considering the aforesaid facts, if the petitioner himself is not conversant with the language or the contents of the information sought, , permitting another person to accompany him during the inspection would, in effect, amount to providing the information to a third party.”
The judge added:
“This gives rise to a impression that the petitioner is merely acting as a pawn for such third party, which is not the object or purpose of the Right to Information Act.”
The emphasised concern was not that the applicant had sought information, but that an accompanying person could become the real recipient of the records.
One More Chance, But Alone
Despite those observations, the High Court gave weight to the petitioner’s affidavit and the fact that he had earlier been denied inspection because of his alleged conduct.
The court the order dated , and directed the respondent to permit Golanbhai to inspect the records within one month. It clarified in unambiguous terms:
“No information shall be furnished or inspection permitted unless the petitioner personally inspects the records without the presence of any accompanying person.”
After the inspection, the petitioner may obtain photocopies of the specific documents he identifies, upon payment of the prescribed charges. The petition was disposed of with these directions.
The ruling reinforces that the right to information is personal to the applicant and cannot be exercised through a proxy, especially where the purported need is only a language barrier.
