Back
Flags Misuse of RTI Act, Seeks Details from Activists Who Filed Thousands
The has intervened decisively against what it perceives as a systematic misuse of the , directing several activists to file detailed affidavits justifying the thousands of RTI applications and appeals they have lodged. The single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj, while hearing a batch of challenging passed by the , expressed serious concern that such large-scale filings were clogging the administrative machinery and undermining the very purpose of the transparency law.
The Court’s order requires each petitioner to submit a comprehensive affidavit within 30 days—by —detailing the total number of applications and appeals filed, the dates and authorities before whom they were filed, the specific documents sought, the reasons for seeking the information, and the intended purpose of its use. Additionally, the KIC has been directed to furnish a complete list of all appeals filed by each petitioner before the Commission on or before . Pending further orders, the Commission need not proceed with hearings on those appeals that are the subject matter of these petitions.
Massive Volume of RTI Applications Raises Red Flags
During the initial hearing, the bench reacted strongly to the staggering numbers cited by the petitioners themselves. Jagadeesh M, a lawyer and member, disclosed that he had filed 1,294 appeals over six years, all seeking information about welfare schemes. The Court remarked, “So, at the rate of one application a day. This dumping of applications is not good. The issue happening is that they are not able to work because they are only looking at your applications, some of the information available on website that also, you are applying for.”
Even more startling figures emerged for other petitioners. Davalsab M had filed 14,774 second appeals before the Commission, while G. R. Sudheendra, owner of a fortnightly magazine, had lodged 6,482 appeals. The bench orally observed, “9600 grievances cannot be genuine. No person can have 9600 grievances, then he has a lot of trouble in life… Firstly, it will affect the functioning of administrative mechanism. It is not just RTI applications, there are other works also… Secondly, genuine applications are pending… Thirdly, the benefit of legislation if it's misused will go… Like any good legislation if it's misused it will create problems.”
The Court also took of the administrative burden. , appearing for the KIC, submitted that the Commission currently has approximately 45,000 pending appeals, and that if just four petitioners before the Court were weeded out, nearly 20,000 appeals would be disposed of. The Additional Government Advocate for the state echoed that the volume of applications was affecting the daily functioning of public authorities and proper administration.
Investigative Journalism or RTI Journalism?
When Sudheendra claimed he was filing applications for investigative journalism purposes, the bench questioned the genuineness of such a large number of requests. “Investigative Journalism is not RTI Journalism…. You have to do investigative journalism, not like this. So, you are going to publish 6,700 articles [referring to similar number of RTI applications]? How many pages does your publication have?” The Court noted that the magazine reportedly has 100–200 pages published every 14 days, casting doubt on the feasibility of using each of the thousands of applications for distinct investigative pieces.
The petitioners’ common defence was that since the information was not initially provided, they exercised their legal right to file , and that such legal remedy cannot be faulted. They argued that blacklisting was therefore unwarranted. However, the Court observed that the power of the KIC to blacklist applicants itself requires consideration, especially since the , , submitted that no specific provision under the RTI Act empowers the Commission to blacklist applicants.
Legal Implications and the Road Ahead
This case throws into sharp relief a growing tension in RTI jurisprudence: balancing the citizen’s against the need to prevent . The ’s intervention signals that courts may be willing to examine the conduct of serial applicants who overwhelm public authorities and information commissions. The question of whether blacklisting is legally permissible without explicit statutory backing remains open.
If the Court ultimately upholds the KIC’s , it could set a precedent for other states to adopt similar measures. Conversely, if the Court finds blacklisting , it may require the legislature to craft specific provisions to deal with . In either scenario, the decision will have significant ramifications for RTI activists, public information officers, and the efficiency of the transparency regime.
The matter is next posted on , by which time the petitioners must file their detailed affidavits. The Court’s order also clarifies that pending these proceedings, the KIC need not dispose of the appeals subject to challenge. This may provide temporary relief to the Commission but also underscores the systemic clog that the Court seeks to untangle.
Conclusion
The ’s strong observations and procedural directives reflect a judiciary unwilling to allow the RTI Act to be weaponised to paralyse administration. By demanding granular justification from serial applicants, the Court is sending a clear message: transparency is endangered when the system meant to foster accountability is itself exploited. The final outcome of this case will likely shape the future contours of RTI practice in India, balancing the with the imperative of administrative efficiency.
