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 6^th
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.