Writ petition challenging a CIC order that warned a CPIO and declined further hearings to a litigant who filed thousands of RTI applications and second appeals. The High Court upheld the order, holding the conduct was systematic misuse of the RTI Act, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~135
VARUN KRISHNA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Apoorv Singhal, AOR, Mr.Tanuj Aggarwal, Mr. R. Venkatraman, Mr. Alok Kumar and Mr. Ashfaq Sheikh, Advs.
versus
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ORS.....Respondents Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi (CGSC) along with Ms. Monalisha Pradha, Mr. Ami Dutta, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)
“In the context of the aforesaid observations, Commission does not find it expedient to afford any further opportunity of hearing in the instant case as well similar cases of the Complainant that may be pending with the Commission.
As regards the merits of the instant case is concerned, Commission observes that the CPIO has erred in not providing specific information with respect to the action taken on the email referred in the RTI Application. In other words, CPIO was required to inform the Complainant regarding the action taken on the averred email instead of providing a response on the subject matter of the email after receiving the RTI Application. Nonetheless, Commission does not find any malafide intention on the part of the CPIO, “rather it reflects on his gross non-application of mind. CPIO is hereby warned to remain careful in future. A copy of this order is also marked to the FAA with a direction to ensure that applicants are provided an opportunity of hearing before deciding
Signature Not Verified
Page 1 of 4
W.P.(C) 8259/2019
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Dat e:1 6.12.2025 17:52:29
First Appeals in future”.
“66. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of the RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information [that is, information other than those enumerated in Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act], equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of Governments, etc.).
67. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities
Signature Not Verified
Page 2 of 4
W.P.(C) 8259/2019
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Dat e:1 6.12.2025 17:52:29
and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquillity and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising “information furnishing”, at the cost of their normal and regular duties.”
28. In fact, the first respondent-Commission itself has deprecated the practice of the second respondent herein in overloading the Registry of this Court by making several queries or complaints one after another and following the same under the RTI Act. Having found that the action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest, the first respondent-Commission clearly erred in passing the impugned order in this Writ Petition, directing the petitioner to furnish the details to the second respondent as well as sending a tabular statement listing all the complaints and representations received from the second respondent.
6. In Shail Sahni v. Sanjeev Kumar And Ors , 2014:DHC:708, a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under –
“10….This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and
Signature Not Verified
Page 3 of 4
W.P.(C) 8259/2019
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Dat e:1 6.12.2025 17:52:29
confidence in this “sunshine Act”. A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. A copy of this order is directed to be sent by the Registry to Defence and Law Ministry, so that they may examine the aspect of misuse of this Act, which confers very important and valuable rights upon a citizen.”
the Supreme Court in CBSE v. Aditya Bandhyopadhyay (supra) and also takes note of the fact that, apart from filing RTI Applications, the petitioner has been indiscriminately sending representations to various Constitutional Authorities as well expressing his apparent lack of faith in justice delivery mechanism. The impugned order also takes note of the legal position and the nuisance caused by the petitioner’s conduct.
SACHIN DATTA, J
DECEMBER 4, 2025/uk
Signature Not Verified
Page 4 of 4
W.P.(C) 8259/2019
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Dat e:1 6.12.2025 17:52:29
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the CIC's order warning the CPIO and restricting hearings was sustainable given the petitioner's filing of thousands of RTI applications amounting to misuse of the RTI Act?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) v. Aditya Bandhyopadhyay & Ors.Relied on¶4
(2011) 8 SCC 497 · Who else cites this
Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) v. The Central Information Commission and AnrReferred¶5
W.P.No.26781 of 2013
Shail Sahni v. Sanjeev Kumar And OrsReferred¶6
2014:DHC:708
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Varun Krishna
Central Information Commission & Ors
Sachin Datta
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
