Punjab & Haryana High Court: RTI Act Does Not Allow Information Requests Intended to Harass Employees
Lexpedia · 19 March 2025 · 2 min read
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has clarified that the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) does not grant the right to individuals to seek information with the intent of harassing employees of a department. The Court made this observation while dealing with a case where a lawyer sought extensive records from a Cooperative Society under the RTI Act, which, according to the Court, was a form of harassment.
Court’s Observation on RTI Act
Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi observed that the RTI Act, 2005 was enacted to ensure transparency within government departments but it does not authorize anyone to seek information for malicious purposes. He said, "The RTI Act, 2005 has been enacted to ensure the transparency of work within the Departments. The same does not give a right to anyone to seek information with a motive, which amounts to harassing the employees of the Department."
Details of Information Sought
In this case, the information requested was extensive, including details about the sale and auction of Molasses, Baggasse, and Press Mud, as well as information regarding bidders, tender notices, documents received from bidders, deposits of earnest money, and the award of contracts to successful bidders. The Cooperative Society argued that this request was essentially seeking third-party information regarding the competitors, which is prohibited under the RTI Act.
Court’s Decision on Third-Party Information
Justice Sethi pointed out that the RTI Act does not allow the disclosure of third-party information about who had participated in the bidding process, as it is barred under Rule 8 of the RTI Rules. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, which emphasized that while the RTI Act aims to ensure transparency and accountability, it also protects other interests such as confidentiality, efficient operation of the government, and fiduciary relationships.
Court’s Conclusion and Impact
Given that the information sought was related to third-party details and could potentially harm public interests, the Court ruled that it could not be disclosed under the RTI Act. Additionally, the Court noted that the matter had been pending for the last 10 years and the complainant had not taken any substantial steps to pursue the matter further. Therefore, the Court set aside the order of the State Information Commissioner.
