The High Court of Orissa has set aside an order passed by the Odisha Information Commission that restricted a petitioner from filing more than 12 Right to Information (RTI) applications in a calendar year and debarred him from filing applications for one year. Justice R.K. Pattanaik held that such a restriction is “not justified” even if the applicant is in the habit of filing multiple applications.
Case Background
The writ petition was filed by Chittaranjan Sethy challenging the order dated 13th September, 2025 passed by the Odisha Information Commission. The petitioner had initially moved the concerned authority seeking information under the RTI Act. When the information was not provided satisfactorily, he preferred appeals.
The Odisha Information Commission, in its order, dismissed the appeals on the premise that the information sought was “repetitive.” Furthermore, considering the “conduct of the petitioner,” the Commission debarred him from filing any further applications for a period of one year with immediate effect and restricted him to filing a maximum of 12 applications in a calendar year before various public authorities.
Arguments of the Parties
Representing the petitioner, Advocate Mr. K.K. Rout argued that the impugned order was “cryptic.” He submitted that the applications were disposed of by claiming they were repeated ones, whereas the information sought had not been provided entirely. Mr. Rout contended that the Commission “could not have debarred the petitioner in making applications in future with restriction imposed,” describing the decision as not legally tenable.
On behalf of the Opposite Parties, Advocate Mr. B.K. Dash (for the Information Commission) and Additional Standing Counsel Mr. M.K. Mohanty (for the State) justified the impugned decision.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Justice R.K. Pattanaik, after hearing the parties, observed that upon reviewing the applications, it was evident that the “entire of the information has not been provided to the petitioner.” The Court held that, excepting the information already supplied, the rest should be shared with the petitioner.
Addressing the core legal issue regarding the cap on RTI applications, the Court observed:
“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.”
The Court further clarified that the Commission lacked the authority to impose such a blanket restriction based on the number of filings. The judgment stated:
“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…”
Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 13th September, 2025 to the extent of the restrictions imposed. The Court directed the authorities to “supply the balance of the information” to the petitioner.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Chittaranjan Sethy v. Odisha Information Commission, Bhubaneswar & others
- Case No.: W.P.(C) No.29216 of 2025
- Coram: Justice R.K. Pattanaik
- Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. K.K. Rout
- Counsel for Opposite Parties: Mr. M.K. Mohanty (ASC), Mr. B.K. Dash
