Monday, September 29, 2025

Decision of Odisha Information Commission to ban RTI Activist- A Dissecting Note

 

Decision of Odisha Information Commission to ban RTI Activist from exercising his fundamental Right under RTI Act

-A Dissecting Note-

1. On 13.9.25, Sri Sushant Mohanty, State Information Commissioner released the  order passed on 61 Second Appeal and Complaint cases (clubbed together and heard by SIC) accusing appellant Sri Chitta Ranjan Sethy being indulged in abusing and misusing RTI Act and restraining him from filling RTI Applications to the Information Commission for one year and restricting him to file only 12 number of cases in a year.  This order was immediately given to the press by Sushant Mohanty, SIC himself, which generally does not happen in the Commission.  As it is seen in the Commission, the order of the cases which are disposed / closed by the Information Commission are sent after one and half months. There is not  a single instance found in the Commission that  the orders of any  Information Commission in the cases disposed of are   released or sent on the same day.

2. The question is raised as to why Sushant Mohanty  hastily  prepared  the order and   released it to the  public without sending it to the appellant. The simple answer is that just before two days  of  the release of the Commission’s order, hundreds of RTI Activist under banner of Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan (OSAA) had organized demonstration in front of office of Odisha Information Commission on 10.9.25 demanding  dismissal of the  Commission and highlight  the  issues  relating to their malfunctioning and  inefficiency and incapacity  to understand language of the law and  dispose  the case  following  the  provision of the RTI Act. The credibility and sanctity of the Information Commission was   questionable in the eye of  the public.  

3. The order passed by the Information Commission relates to a number of Second Appeal and Complaint cases filed by Sri Chitta Ranjan Sethy who  is  a dalit  Social Worker, 50 years old man  hailed from Nimapara Block of Puri district  and  had filed  several RTI Applications  in Meteipur  Gram Panchayat and Nimapara Block  seeking  several information on development programmes  undertaken  under various scheme such as NREGA, CFC and SFC  fund, list  of beneficiaries  under pension scheme and various construction work in which false bill has been prepared  and laks of rupees misappropriated. The reason behind filling so many RTI Applications was to expose corruption in these development projects and repeated  denial of information by the PIOs. These RTIs  were  filed  in 2023 with the objective  to expose corruption and irregularities  in development projects.  When  the information was repeatedly  denied  by the PIOs and  First Appellate Authorities, Chitta Ranjan Sethi  continued  filing a number of Second Appeals and Complaint cases  in the Information Commission to get justice. It deserves to be mentioned here that  the year of  2023  witnessed huge  loot and misappropriation of  public funds in the name of development projects by  contractors and political workers of Biju Janata Dal. 

4. However, after around two years, Sri Sushant Kumar Mohanty, State Information Commissioner, Odisha (Address- Toshali Bhawan, Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751007) fixed the hearing of 61 cases (clubbing together Second Appeal-35 and Complaint Case-26) (  few of them are CC No. 216/23, 1010/23, 1172/23,1242/23,1297/23, 1445/23, 1505/23, 2317/23, 2480/23, SA No. 896/23, 931/23, 1192/23, 515/23, 1191/23, 1613/23,2341/23,2775/23,2827/23, 3438/23)   on the pretext that all the cases are same and similar nature and same Public Authorities) on 4.7.25.  Sri Pradip Kumar Pradhan, eminent RTI Activist of Odisha was present in the hearing and pleaded  the case on behalf of Appellant. During the hearing, Chitta Ranjan Sethy, Appellant requested the Commission to make all correspondence with him in Odia as he does not have knowledge in English and he could not understand the English-written letter sent from the office of the Commission. Sri Pradhan also appraised  the  Commission that  the information sought for is of public importance and corruption related issues. The reason behind filling so many RTI Applications on particular subjects was non-response of RTI Applications repeatedly by the PIO and First Appellate Authority and  requested  for a penalty against the PIOs.   While hearing from both the parties, the Commission directed the PIO and First Appellate Authority to allow him for inspection of documents. On plea for fixing another  date of hearing, Sri Sushant Mohanty turned down the plea and kept all the cases reserved for passing order. However, as per direction of the Information Commission, the appellant visited the Nimapara Block office on 22.7.25. for inspection. He inspected all the documents and obtained certain information. Similarly, on 24.7.25, he visited the Office of Meteipur Gram Panchayat, but the PIO did not allow him for inspection. He returned back and waited for the next hearing of the Commission.

 

5. Without waiting for any submission or issuing notice for hearing, the Information Commissioner Sri Sushant Mohanty passed the order unilaterally and sent it to the press.

 

6. In the order it is mentioned that “the appellant has used RTI Application disproportionately and abused the RTI Act and the large number of applications filed has resulted in disproportionate diversion of resources of the Public authority”. This allegation is completely false and erroneous, as claimed by Sri Chitta Ranjan Sethy, Appellant.  In fact, as the PIOs   did not respond to the RTI Application, he continued to file similar types of applications to different public authorities in his quest for obtaining the information, as it was very important for me to fight against the corruption.

7.   On point No. 24 captioned (Wastage of public resources) , the Commission has mentioned that “Addressing such RTI applications results in significant wastage of time and resources for government departments. This includes costs incurred on postal charges, photocopy charges, paper costs and other administrative expenses at the stage of PIO response, first appeal, and second appeal / complaint case. This strain of public resources detracts from the regular and essential functions of public authorities) . It is completely false,  fabricated and figment of imagination and designed to defame the appellant. In all the 61 cases, neither the PIO responded nor the First Appellate Authority heard or disposed of the cases. When the RTI Applications and Appeals are not responded to at all, the wastage of time and public resources of the Government Department does not arise. The allegation made by the Commission is absolutely ill-motivated and deserves to be condemned.    The Information Commission has passed such an order without understanding the law and the appellant’s objective of seeking the information. The more disheartening is that in a single hearing,  the Commission closed the cases without hearing from the appellant.

8. On point No. 22 captioned ( Public Resources Protection) , the Information Commissioner Sushant Mohanty has taken for granted that the appellant has used RTI disproportionately and quoted section 7(9) that “The RTI Act should not be used to disproportionately divert public authority resources. As per Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act, the information can be refused if it disproportionately diverts the resources of the public authority”. In fact in all 61 cases taken together for hearing, the PIO has never invoked this section and rejected RTI Application on the above-mentioned ground. Even the FAA has also not passed any such order taking the said ground. Had it been mentioned by   the PIO and FAA in their respective decisions taking ground of section 7(9), the   argument of the Commission could have been justified.  

Violation

1.To obtain information under RTI Act is the fundamental right of every citizen as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution.  The order of the Commission to ban poor  appellant from filing RTI Application is the violation of  Human Rights and  fundamental Right.

 

2.     The decision of the Odisha Information Commission also violates Article 19 of Universal declaration of Human Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The right of access to information is recognised under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as an element of freedom of expression. It is included as the right to seek and receive information. The UN Human Rights Committee in General Comment 34, adopted in 2011, interpreted the scope and limits of the right to information, stating that Article 19 of the ICCPR ensures the right to access information held by public bodies.

 

3.     This order of the Information Commission also violates section 3 of the Right to Information Act. Section 3 stipulates that every citizen shall have the right to information. The power of the Information   Commission has been clearly stipulated under section 18, 19,20 of the RTI Act i.e., to hear and dispose appeal and complaint cases, impose penalty on erring PIO, ensure supply of information, and recommend for awarding compensation etc. The Act does not empower the Commission to penalize the Appellant or complainant. The Punjab and Harayan High Court, while adjudicating a writ petition (CWP-8035-2025 (O&M) decided on :09.07.2025 MANJINDER SINGH, petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHER) has upheld the right to the citizens and set aside the decision of the Punjab Information Commission to debar the petitioner from filling the RTI Application.  The Telngana High Court, while adjudicating a Writ Petition No. 28503/2025 on 18.9.25   has rejected mindless notice issued by Telengana Information Commission to  the appellant and directed  to issue  fresh notice  for hearing.  The telengana Information Commission has issued  notice for hearing of all 404 cases in the full-bench Commission on dated 18.9.25 at 4.30 PM without mentioned  details of cases and case No.

4.     The Information Commission in its order has mentioned that the appellant knows English and pretends ignorant about English which is not fact.  As a 6th class pass out, he could read a,b,c,d and put his signature in English. But  it does not mean that he is well-versed in English and capable of understanding the legal language of    English-written order passed by the Commission.   He has also confessed and made written submissions   during hearing that he could neither read  nor write English. It deserves mention here that he has repeatedly requested the Commission to send the copy of all letters and proceedings of the case in Odia. But the Information Commissioner Sri Mohanty never gives any direction to his own office staff  to send all documents in Odia. Finding it very difficult to understand English, he  took assistance from a local advocate and made a written submission in English by spending a huge amount of money for advocate fees. This Information Commission has repeatedly harassed him without supplying correct and complete information and dismissed all my cases arbitrarily which violated his right to get information as guaranteed under the RTI Act and the Indian Constitution.

Pradip Kumar Pradhan

RTI Activist, Bhubaneswar, Odisha

M-9937843482

Date- 28.9.25