RTI Not a Means to Invade Personal Lives, Rules CIC

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has made a landmark decision, stating that the Right to Information (RTI) Act should not be used to invade the personal lives of individuals. This ruling comes as a response to a petition filed by an individual seeking personal information about a public servant. The CIC has emphasized that the RTI Act is intended to promote transparency and accountability in government institutions, not to intrude into the personal lives of citizens. The commission has noted that the RTI Act is often misused to settle personal scores or to harass public servants. The CIC has warned that such misuse of the RTI Act can have serious consequences, including damaging the reputation of individuals and undermining the trust in public institutions. The commission has also emphasized the need for a balanced approach, where the right to information is exercised in a manner that respects the privacy and dignity of individuals. The CIC has cited several cases where the RTI Act has been misused to seek personal information, including details about an individual’s family, financial assets, and personal relationships. The commission has observed that such information is not relevant to the functioning of public institutions and should not be disclosed under the RTI Act. The CIC has also noted that the RTI Act provides for exemptions from disclosure of personal information, which should be strictly adhered to. The commission has advised public authorities to exercise caution when responding to RTI requests, ensuring that they do not disclose personal information that is not relevant to the public interest. The CIC has also suggested that public authorities should provide training to their officials on the proper handling of RTI requests, to prevent the misuse of the Act. Furthermore, the commission has recommended that the government should consider introducing stricter penalties for the misuse of the RTI Act. The CIC’s decision is expected to have significant implications for the implementation of the RTI Act, as it sets a clear precedent for the limits of the right to information. The decision is also likely to be welcomed by public servants, who have often complained about the misuse of the RTI Act to harass and intimidate them. However, the decision may also be seen as a setback for transparency and accountability, as it may limit the ability of citizens to access information about public institutions. Overall, the CIC’s decision highlights the need for a balanced approach to the right to information, one that promotes transparency and accountability while respecting the privacy and dignity of individuals.

Source