Chandigarh: Observing that the Right to Information (RTI) Act cannot be used to settle personal scores, the Punjab State Information Commission has said vexatious and non-public-interest applications can be rejected at the level of a public information officer (PIO). It held that such requests disrupt the functioning of public authorities and undermine the spirit of the law.The observation was made by state information commissioner Pooja Gupta while disposing of an appeal filed by a Mohali resident who sought information from the municipal corporation, Zirakpur, Mohali district.During the last hearing, the appellant submitted that complete information was not provided even after two years and sought penal action against the Public Information Officer (PIO) under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant also requested permission for another inspection of records, stating that his representative was not aware of the contents of the RTI application.The respondent PIO, represented by a draftsman along with counsel, said the appellant filed an RTI application seeking voluminous information and, despite a demand for the prescribed fee, requested inspection instead of depositing the copying charges. The appellant was allowed inspection as per the commission’s order dated July 9, 2025. During the inspection, 100 pages were handed over to the appellant free of cost, but he did not pay any further fee and is therefore not entitled to raise any deficiency, as he sought extensive information running into thousands of pages. They further submitted that the appellant habitually seeks voluminous information without any public interest and avoids paying fees on one pretext or another. The PIO submitted that the original record produced before the commission comprised 76,481 pages and that the appellant could obtain copies at his own expense.After examining the case record and the averments narrated by the respondent PIO, the commission noted that it is ascertained that the appellant is unnecessarily harassing the respondent PIO and wasting the time of the department as well as the commission. Five hearings were held in the matter, and the appellant was given sufficient opportunities to inspect the records. It also observed that the appellant sent a representative who was not aware of the facts of the case, as admitted by the appellant during the proceedings, which shows that the appellant has no public interest in obtaining the information and is instead harassing the respondent PIO. The commission further held that the information sought was vague and voluminous, and that collecting and compiling such data is diverting the resources of the public authority.Concluding that the appellant was misusing the RTI Act, the commission ruled that such applications, not filed in public interest, can be dismissed at the initial stage. It held that no further cause of action remained in the matter and disposed of the appeal, directing that copies of the order be sent to both parties.
