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.
It asks 2 things — 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 case sets the citizen's right to know against an administration's need to work free of extortion; since Section 6(2) asks no reasons, a PIO judges conduct, not motives.
Cover
- Legal limit: Section 6(2) requires no reasons from an applicant, so a PIO cannot reject a request for who files it or why.
- Proactive disclosure under Section 4. Merit: fewer repeat requests, no market for extortion. Demerit: needs staff and regular updating.
- The Act's own filters: Section 8 exemptions, third-party procedure, Section 7(9). Merit: lawful and appealable. Demerit: risk of over-refusal.
- Specific requests under the RTI Rules, 2012 (ordinarily 500 words). Merit: faster replies. Demerit: complex genuine queries may suffer.
- Evidence on abuse: log repeat and bulk filings; report demands for money as extortion. Merit: targets real abuse. Demerit: risk of profiling activists.
- Balance: CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) warned against RTI paralysing administration or intimidating honest officials, while upholding transparency.
- Systemic: computerised records for wide dissemination, every reply published online, trained PIOs and quick appeals.
Close with · Openness by default, firm action against extortion as a crime, and respect for every applicant's right can 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· 375words · Minimalist IAS
The case sets the citizen's right to know against an administration's need to work free of extortion. Since Section 6(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 asks no reasons of an applicant, a PIO cannot judge motives, only conduct.
Stakeholders
- Who is affected: genuine applicants and whistle-blowers; proxy applicants and extortionists; harassed officers; the PIO; Information Commissions; and the public interest in transparency.
Ethical issues
- Transparency against harassment: a few bad cases must not dilute a right the Supreme Court has read into Article 19(1)(a), or make every applicant a suspect.
- Duty against loyalty: the PIO serves the law, not colleagues who fear scrutiny.
Measures to separate genuine from non-genuine applications
- Request received
- Already public? Point to Section 4
- Exempt? Reasoned refusal
- Extortion? Report to police
- 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 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: temptation to over-refuse, so every denial must be reasoned.
- Specific requests: the central RTI Rules, 2012 ask that an application ordinarily stay within 500 words, though none may be rejected on that ground alone. Merit: faster replies. Demerit: complex genuine queries may suffer.
- Evidence on abuse: log repeat and bulk applications, and report any demand for money to the police as extortion, a crime rather than an RTI matter. Merit: targets real abuse. Demerit: may profile genuine activists, so act on conduct, not volume.
Striking the balance
- The Court's caution: 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.
Long-term systemic measures
- Records built for openness: the Act asks authorities to computerise records for wide dissemination; publishing every reply online, training PIOs and quick appeals would leave little room for secrecy or blackmail.
Openness by default, firm action against extortion as a crime, and respect for every applicant's right can keep RTI both strong and clean.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 1 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
