You are a Public Information Officer (PIO) in a government department. You are aware that the RTI Act, 2005 envisages transparency and accountability in administration. The act has functioned as a check on the supposedly arbitrarily administrative behaviour and actions. However, as a PIO you have observed that there are citizens who filed RTI applications not for themselves but on behalf of such stakeholders who purportedly want to have access to information to further their own interests. At the same time there are those RTI activists who routinely file RTI applications and attempt to extort money from the decision makers. This type of RTI activism has affected the functioning of the administration adversely and also possibly jeopardizes the genuineness of the applications which are essentially aimed at getting justice.
What measures would you suggest to separate genuine and non-genuine applications ? Give merits and demerits of your suggestions.
Approach · directive: “what measures would you suggest / give merits and demerits”
What it asks · Suggest ways to separate genuine from misusing RTI applications without weakening the right, and weigh each suggestion.
The question has 2 parts — answer each
- Suggest measures a PIO can take to separate genuine from non-genuine RTI applications
- Give the merits and demerits of each suggestion
Open with · The RTI Act empowers citizens; misuse by a few must be handled without diluting its purpose or making every applicant a suspect.
Cover
- Legal limit: an applicant need not give reasons for seeking information (Section 6(2)), so a PIO cannot reject a request because of who files it or why.
- Suggestion 1: proactive disclosure under Section 4 of frequently sought information. Merit: fewer repeat requests, more transparency. Demerit: needs staff effort and regular updates.
- Suggestion 2: use existing provisions: Section 8 exemptions, third-party procedure and Section 7(9) on requests that divert resources disproportionately. Merit: lawful. Demerit: risk of over-refusal.
- Suggestion 3: log repeat and bulk applicants and refer extortion to police or vigilance. Merit: tackles real abuse. Demerit: risk of profiling genuine activists.
- Suggestion 4: seek clear, specific requests, use online portals and apply Commission rulings on vexatious requests. Merit: lighter workload. Demerit: may block genuine complex queries.
- Balance: in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) the Supreme Court cautioned that RTI should not disrupt administration or harass officials, while upholding transparency.
- Safeguards: give reasons in writing, allow first appeal, protect genuine applicants and whistleblowers, and remember that misuse is rare compared with the Act's public value.
Close with · Openness by default, firm action on extortion and respect for the applicant's right can together keep RTI both strong and clean.
Add value (verified)
- CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (Supreme Court, 2011): the RTI Act should not become a tool of oppression of honest officials; the nation does not want 75% of the staff of public authorities spending 75% of their time furnishing information. Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, Supreme Court, 9 August 2011 — Indian Kanoon ↗“Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties.”
- Right to Information Rules, 2012, Rule 3: an application shall ordinarily not contain more than five hundred words, but no application shall be rejected only on that ground. Right to Information Rules, 2012 (Gazette of India, 31 July 2012) — copy hosted by IIT Guwahati ↗“An application under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act shall be accompanied by a fee of rupees ten and shall ordinarily not contain more than five hundred words, excluding annexures, containing address of the Central Public Information Officer and that of the applicant: Provided that no application shall be rejected only on the ground that it contains more than five hundred words.”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2017, GS Paper IV — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 1 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 372 words (UPSC limit 250) · Minimalist IAS
The RTI Act, 2005 lets every citizen seek information without stating reasons (Section 6(2)), and the Supreme Court has read the right to information into Article 19(1)(a). A PIO cannot judge motives; the task is to curb abuse while keeping the right intact.
Stakeholders
- Genuine applicants and whistle-blowers; proxy applicants and extortionists; harassed officers; the PIO and the public authority; Information Commissions; the public interest in transparency.
Ethical issues
- Transparency against harassment: a few bad cases must not dilute a hard-won right or make every applicant a suspect.
- Duty against loyalty: the PIO owes fair treatment to the applicant, not protection to colleagues.
Measures, with merits and demerits
- Proactive disclosure (Section 4): publish tenders, file notings and frequently sought records online. Merit: removes the market extortionists trade on and cuts repeat requests. Demerit: needs staff, digitisation and regular updating.
- The Act's own filters: exemptions under Section 8, the third-party procedure, and Section 7(9), which allows a different form of information where the form sought would disproportionately divert resources. Merit: lawful and appealable. Demerit: a temptation to over-refuse; every denial must be reasoned.
- Specific requests: the RTI Rules, 2012 ask that an application ordinarily stay within 500 words, though none may be rejected on that ground alone; help desks can sharpen vague queries. Merit: faster replies. Demerit: complex genuine queries may be discouraged.
- Evidence on abuse: keep a register of repeat and bulk applications, and refer any demand for money to the police or vigilance as extortion, a crime rather than an RTI matter. Merit: targets real abuse. Demerit: may profile persistent but genuine activists, so act on conduct, not volume.
- Protect the core: reply on time, treat proxy applications on merit, and shield whistle-blowers. Merit: keeps the Act's purpose. Demerit: demands discipline.
Striking the balance
- In CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011), the Supreme Court warned against "a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time" furnishing information, and against using RTI to intimidate honest officials, while upholding transparency.
Openness by default, firm action against extortion as a crime, and respect for every applicant's right can keep RTI both strong and clean.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.