The State Information Commission, Haryana, has ruled that a State Public Information Officer (SPIO) serves only as a statutory facilitator and has no legal jurisdiction, authority, or power to “restrain, bar, or blacklist an appellant/complainant” from filing Right to Information (RTI) applications.
Complainant Sandeep Sharan had filed an RTI application with Shahbad Sugar Mills Limited in Kurukshetra on November 12, 2025. However, the SPIO, in a response dated January 21, restrained the complainant from filing applications on the ground that he had submitted repeated RTI requests. The SPIO further stated that action may be taken against the complainant for disrupting the discharge of official duties if he did not desist from filing RTI applications.
The complainant filed a complaint before the State Information Commission on January 27. The commission observed that the SPIO failed to furnish the complainant with correct and complete information.
After hearing both parties, State Information Commissioner Dr Ajay Kumar Sura said, “Even in cases where an appellant/complainant files voluminous, repetitive, or allegedly vexatious requests, the SPIO cannot issue any injunction, embargo, or blanket prohibition against such appellant/complainant. The SPIO is required to deal with each RTI application independently and on a case-to-case basis, and may invoke only those exemptions specifically provided under Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, 2005.”
He added, “The RTI Act also contains no provision empowering an SPIO to issue a restraining order against an information seeker. Any such action is clearly ultra vires the provisions of the Act and is therefore without legal sanction. Needless to mention, an SPIO is an authority created by statute and can exercise only those powers which are expressly conferred upon him by the statute.”
