RTI bench dismisses 7,651 appeals, warns against misusing the law
MUMBAI: Calling them a burden on the government administration and a misuse of the law, the Sambhaji Nagar bench of the Information Commission has dismissed 7,651 appeals filed by 18 Right To Information (RTI) activists over the last 15 months.
In a recent order, the commission also called the appeals filed by one applicant in particular a misuse of the RTI Act. In doing so, the order stated, the applicant was holding government offices to ransom, potentially bringing work in these offices to a standstill.
In its order passed on July 14 and uploaded on the commission's portal this week, Prakash Indalkar, state information commissioner of the Sambhaji Nagar bench of the commission, dismissed 81 appeals filed by RTI activist Janak Gaikwad. Of the bulk appeals dismissed since April 2024, filed by 18 applicants, 3,660 appeals filed by Keshavraje Nimbalkar were dismissed in June and December 2024; and 1,144 second appeals filed by activist Sharad Dabhade were dismissed in April and September 2024.
In a one-off order, Indalkar cited two verdicts by the Supreme Court and Chief Information Commission of India. He pointed to an August 2011 verdict of the apex court, which had stated, 'The act should not … be converted into a tool of oppression and intimidation, and not turn into a scenario where 75% of the government staff is engaged in 75% of their time in collecting RTI information instead of discharging their duty…' the order states.
The July 14 order also cited a verdict delivered by then central information commissioner, Shailesh Gandhi, in 2012, where he had said that right to information is a fundamental right of citizens and it should not be used to fulfill the demands of one individual. Gandhi had also said that repeated applications and appeals was a waste of public resources.
Indalkar also said that bulk appeals do not serve any public interest but vested individual interests. 'Because of the bulk applications by specific applicants, significant time of government officers and personnel is wasted. This has posed the danger of government staff spending most of their precious time collecting RTI information instead of serving the people,' the order stated.
An official from the Information Commission said that a large number of appeals were filed against officers and teachers in aided and government schools, and government departments such as the forest and rural development departments. 'In some cases, the appeals were filed to blackmail government servants,' the official said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
22 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump to demand data from collages to prove they're not using race in admissions
US President Donald Trump is expected to sign a memorandum on Thursday directing colleges that receive federal funding to disclose expanded admissions data, the White House said, in a move aimed at ensuring compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling against affirmative action. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced the upcoming directive on X (formerly Twitter), saying the administration will require universities to provide proof that they are not engaging in race-conscious admissions practices. A senior White House official told ABC News the directive will task the Secretary of Education with expanding the admissions data schools are required to report, citing a need for 'transparency' in higher education. According to a fact sheet reviewed by ABC News, 'The lack of available admissions data from universities raises concerns about whether race is actually used in admissions decisions in practice.' The new reporting requirements will include information on applicants' race, test scores, and academic performance. The goal, according to the White House, is to "verify that their admissions do not involve unlawful discrimination." The fact sheet adds that the Department of Education will also be ordered to revamp its website to make admissions data 'more efficient, easily accessible, and intelligibly presented for parents and students.' The directive follows recent settlements with Columbia and Brown universities, which agreed to release detailed admissions data, including racial information, after months of negotiations with the Trump administration over federal funding. Those settlements have sparked a national debate over academic freedom, government oversight, and the role of race in college admissions. This latest move fits into a broader effort by the Trump administration to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. In his first week back in office, Trump signed an executive order requiring all federal departments and agencies to eliminate 'discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, programs' tied to DEI efforts.
NDTV
26 minutes ago
- NDTV
Top Court Criticises Allahabad High Court For Ignoring Settled Law On Sentence Suspension
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has once again expressed its displeasure with an order of the Allahabad High Court for failing to apply settled legal principles while rejecting a plea for suspension of sentence in a fixed-term conviction. The observations from the top court came days after it pulled up an Allahabad High Court judge for allowing criminal proceedings in a civil dispute case. In an unprecedented order, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan on August 4 stripped criminal matters of the roster of a Allahabad High Court judge "till he demits office" after he "erroneously" upheld summons of criminal nature in a civil dispute. The same bench came hard on the high court decision in another case. "The impugned Order is one more from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad with which we are disappointed," it said, adding that this plea arose from an order passed by the High Court on May 29, in a criminal appeal by which the high court declined to suspend the substantive order of sentence passed by the trial court. "We are once again constrained to observe that such errors creep in at the level of the High Court and only because the wellsettled principles of law on the subject are not applied correctly. "It is very important to first look into the subject-matter. Thereafter the court should look into the issue involved. In the last the court should look into the plea of the litigant and then proceed to apply the correct principles of law," Justice Pardiwala said in an order on August 6. The apex court observed that the High Court's order was legally flawed and demonstrated a disregard for established jurisprudence. It was hearing an appeal filed by a convict who had been sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment under various provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The convict had approached the high court with an application under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking suspension of his sentence. However, the high court rejected the plea solely on the ground that the offence was "heinous", without evaluating the request in light of the settled law. Setting aside the high court's order, bench cited a landmark judgment which mandates that appellate courts should adopt a liberal approach in suspending fixed-term sentences unless exceptional circumstances exist. Emphasizing the need for judicial clarity, the bench said, "It is very important to first look into the subject matter. Thereafter, the court should examine the issues involved, and only then consider the plea of the litigant before applying the correct principles of law." The apex court took particular issue with the high court's failure to analyze the application on legal grounds. "What the high court did was to reiterate the prosecution's case and the oral evidence, without engaging with the legal test for suspension of sentence in a fixed-term conviction," the bench observed. It has now remanded the matter back to the high court for fresh consideration, directing it to pass an appropriate order within 15 days. "The High Court shall keep in mind that the sentence is for a fixed term, that is four years and it is only if there are compelling circumstances indicating that release would not be in public interest, that suspension may be denied," the order clarified.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
HC stays Bengal JEE results, asks Board to prepare new list with old OBC quota
Hours before the declaration of West Bengal Joint Entrance Examination (WBJEE) results, the Calcutta High Court on Thursday put a stay on it over the OBC reservation issue. The single judge Bench of Justice Kausik Chanda ordered the JEE Board to reconstitute a fresh panel and publish the results with 7 per cent reservation for 66 OBC classes as per the May 2024 order of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. He also directed that the entire exercise needs to be completed within 15 days from the date of this order. The Bench of Justice Chanda was hearing a contempt plea against the state government and the West Bengal Joint Entrance Examination Board (WBJEEB) over the OBC quota order after receiving a mail from a set of empanelled WBJEE candidates. The board was ready to declare the JEE 2025 results after the Supreme Court last week stayed the Calcutta High Court's order that barred the implementation of a revised list of OBCs notified by the West Bengal government. During the hearing on Thursday, Justice Chanda objected to the publication of the JEE results as per the state's new OBC list of 140 subsections of OBC under A and B categories, and asked what impact the Supreme Court's stay would have on the declaration of results. 'WBJEE Board shall not publish results on the basis of the merit list prepared by them by including OBC A and B categories,' Justice Chanda said. Senior Advocate Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for the WBJEE Board, told the court that no further action will be taken in the admission process that goes against the May 21 order of the High Court wherein a single judge bench prohibited the board from any further steps, until the division bench of the High Court decided on the stay application filed against the order. ' I am just informing the court that JEE 2025 results are to be published today I am just asking that the results be published today, but the admission procedure will not happen until further court orders,' Banerjee said, adding that the Supreme Court had directed the Board to continue with its course of action and consequently, the notification for the publication of the results was issued. To this, Justice Chanda told Kalyan Banerjee: 'Tell me whether the results will include OBC A or OBC B quota or not. 130 classes under the OBC category were cancelled, and 66 were preserved (by the High Court). Has the Supreme Court authorised you to revalidate it? You had said you would examine the issue… You have complicated the issue and notified everything. It is your interpretation that the SC order allows the inclusion of both the OBC A and OBC B. If both categories are included, then I will not allow the list to be published.' Advocate General Kishore Dutta, appearing for the State, said that the May 2024 order cancelled 113 OBC categories and retained 66, which were listed before 2010. 'Out of 66, only 64 were reclassified (in the new list) under OBC A (14) and OBC B (50 ) in the new survey. However, Justice Chanda ordered the WBJEE Board to constitute a fresh panel and publish the results with 7 per cent reservation. 'Such an exercise shall be done within 15 days,' the court ordered, and listed the matter after 3 weeks.
