RTI Act Cannot Be A Tool For Grievance Redressal or to Settle Scores with Superiors: CIC Admonishes Army Officer - 2025-08-07

RTI Act Cannot Be a Tool for Grievance Redressal, CIC Admonishes Army Officer

New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has strongly admonished a serving Lieutenant Colonel, cautioning that the Right to Information (RTI) Act is a tool for transparency and not for airing personal service grievances or settling scores with superiors. Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari disposed of four appeals filed by the officer, noting that his requests were aimed at seeking justifications and interpretations rather than specific information held on record.

Case Background

The case involved four separate second appeals filed by Lt. Col. Laxmi Dhar Bhuyan against the Public Information Officer (PIO) of Artillery Records, Nasik, under the Ministry of Defence. The appeals were clubbed together as they involved common parties and similar subject matter.

Lt. Col. Bhuyan had filed a series of voluminous and detailed RTI applications seeking extensive information related to his complaints of harassment, misuse of power, and criminal intimidation against his superior officers. His queries delved into the administrative functioning of Artillery Records, demanding copies of authorities for actions taken against him, CCTV footage of his superiors' attendance, financial details of mess funds, and justifications for commendations awarded to other officers.

Arguments Presented

The Appellant, Lt. Col. Bhuyan , who appeared for the video-conference hearing in uniform, contended that he needed the requested documents to expose corruption within his department and to support a case he had allegedly filed in a High Court. However, during the hearing, he failed to provide specific details of the pending court case or clearly identify which specific documents were wrongly denied to him under the RTI Act. The Commission noted that the appellant repeatedly ventilated his grievances and interrupted the proceedings, failing to confine his arguments to the scope of the RTI Act.

The Respondent (PIO, Artillery Records) submitted that a point-wise reply had been provided for each RTI application. They argued that much of the information sought was either not held, exempted as third-party information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, or was in the nature of seeking clarifications, which is beyond the CPIO's mandate. For voluminous records like account books and CCTV footage, the respondent had offered the appellant an opportunity for in-person inspection.

Commission's Verdict and Reasoning

Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari, in a detailed order, found no fault with the CPIO's replies and dismissed the appeals. The Commission made several critical observations about the appellant's misuse of the RTI framework.

The CIC observed that the RTI applications were "unspecific/cumbersome" and did not conform to the 500-word limit prescribed under RTI Rules, 2012. More significantly, the Commission ruled that the appellant's queries were not for "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act.

Quoting landmark Supreme Court judgments, the Commission reiterated established legal principles:

• On the Scope of 'Information': Citing CBSE vs. Aditya Bandhopadhyay & Ors. , the CIC stated, “A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide advice or opinion to an applicant...” The Commission held that the CPIO is a communicator of existing records and cannot be compelled to interpret documents or create information to suit the applicant's perspective.

• On Seeking Justifications: Referencing the Bombay High Court's decision in Dr. Celsa Pinto vs. The Goa State Information Commission , the order clarified, “The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.”

Admonition and Final Decision

The Commission took a dim view of the appellant's conduct, particularly as a serving employee of the respondent authority. It noted, "The conduct of the Appellant in the present matter, to say the least, is questionable and is not appreciated."

In a stern warning, the CIC held:

"Accordingly, the Appellant is cautioned and admonished wherein he should keep in mind that the RTI Act should be used judiciously, sensibly and responsibly so that purpose of the RTI Act would not be defeated."

Concluding that the CPIO had provided replies in consonance with the RTI Act, the Commission disposed of all four appeals, refusing to direct the respondent to provide any further clarifications or interpretations as demanded by the appellant.