The Orissa High Court held that the Odisha Information Commission acted unjustifiably by restricting a litigant to only 12 RTI applications per year. It ruled that the Commission cannot limit the number of RTIs a citizen can file in a year.
The Orissa High Court determined that the Odisha Information Commission’s restriction on a litigant limiting him to filing only 12 applications per year with various public authorities was unjustified.
This ruling came as a result of a petition from the petitioner requesting the State Information Commission to resolve appeals within a specified time frame.
Justice R.K. Pattanaik, presiding over the Single Bench, stated,
“The Court is also of the view that the restriction imposed on the petitioner not to make any further applications under the RTI Act in a calendar year but allowing 12 applications only in a year before various public authorities is not justified. In other words, the Court is of the conclusion that opposite party No.1 could not have imposed such a restriction on the petitioner even though he is in the habit of filing number of applications seeking information under the RTI Act and therefore, to that extent, the impugned order at Annexure-6 is liable to be set aside with the direction to opposite party No.2 to supply the balance of the information considering Annexure-1 series.”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Defers RTI Petitions Targeting Political Party Transparency
Advocate K.K. Rout represented the petitioner, while Additional Standing Counsel M.K. Mohanty appeared for the opposite parties.
The petitioner requested information under the RTI Act, which was met with an order deemed cryptic and repetitive by the petitioner.
Following this, the Public Information Officer received the applications and subsequent appeals. Considering the conduct of the petitioner, the Odisha Information Commission imposingly barred him from submitting further applications for one year, permitting only 12 applications to be filed within that period.
The petitioner argued that such a restriction lacked legal validity. Upon reviewing the information sought and the case details, the Bench concluded that not all requested information had been provided.
ALSO READ: Congress Accuses Modi Government of Weakening RTI Act with New Data Protection Law
The court ordered,
“Therefore, this Court is of the humble view that excepting the ones already supplied, the rest should be shared with the petitioner considering the applications as per Annexure-1 series,”
The Bench ultimately found the limitations placed on the petitioner regarding further applications unjustified, leading to the dismissal of the restriction and instructing the Public Information Officer to furnish the necessary information.
Case Title: Chittaranjan Sethy v. Information Commission (Case No.: W.P.(C) No.29216 of 2025)
Read Live Coverage
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
