Sensational way of using the Right to Information Act
The Appellant wanted to know about the number of citizens who asked for the permission from the President of India for committing suicide due to their personal problems or because of exploitation by government officials and some other related information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that they did not have any such information. The First Appellate Authority endorsed the response of the PIO.
View of CIC
The CIC agreed that if the President’s office is not maintaining any such record, the PIO cannot be expected to cull out such information and provide to the Appellant. It was observed that the response of the PIO and the order of the Appellate Authority were absolutely in order.
Answering every RTI application requires spending some public resources. It’s use for, what the CIC termed as a sensational way of using the Right to Information (RTI) Act, is not good for the country.
Citation: Shri Manoj Kumar Arya v. President’s Secretariat in file no. CIC/SM/A/2011/000499
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/77
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission