RTI Act Doesn't Give Right To Seek Information With Motive To Harass: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High has said that the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) does not give right to anyone to seek information with a motive which amounts to harassing the employees of the Department.

In the present case, the information of the complete record of the Department was sought from the Cooperative Society by a lawyer.

Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi said, "The Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as 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."

After pursuing the RTI application, the Court noted that the information on the sale and the auction of the Molasses, Baggasse and Press Mud including the details of the minimum bidders, was sought. Further, copies of all the orders placed by the Central and the State Governments for the sale of the molasses, notice inviting tenders, the bidders and the documents received by them, the document showing the deposit of the earnest money qua the said tenders and the award of the contract to the successful bidders, has been sought.

Justice Sethi highlighted that the "prima facie shows that a third party information was being sought from the petitioner-Cooperative Society as to who competed for the purchase of the Molasses, Baggasse and Press Mud."

The Court said, "As per the settled principle of law, third-party information as to who had submitted the bid and what were the documents submitted by the said person, cannot be given under the RTI Act, 2005 as the same is barred under Rule 8."

Reliance was sought on Apex Court's decision in Central Board of Secondary Education and another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay to underscore that the provisions of 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 section 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.), the Supreme Court said.

Consequently, the Court opined that the information being sought by the applicant, cannot be given.

"Even otherwise, the matter is pending in this Court for the last 10 years and no efforts have been made qua upholding the impugned order dated 03.07.2014...by the respondent No.2-complainant which shows that even the respondent No.2-complainant is not interested in pursuing the present remedy," added the Court.

In light of the above, the Court set aside the order of the State Information Commissioner.

Mr. Rahul Sharma-I, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Akshita Chauhan, DAG, Punjab.

Title: Punjab State Federation of Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. The State Information Commission, Punjab and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 121

Click here to read/download the order