Chhattisgarh HC Substitutes "Habitual Information Seeker" Remark Against RTI Applicant in Review

The High Court of Chhattisgarh substituted adverse observations against an RTI applicant, replacing "habitual information seeker" and "bombarded" with neutral language in a review petition.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, on 3 August 2026, partially modified its earlier judgment dated 13 May 2026 in a writ petition arising from penalty orders passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, sitting singly, accepted a review petition filed by Nitin Singhvi — who had been on the receiving end of adverse observations in paragraph 30 of that earlier order — and directed that the expressions “habitual information seeker” and “bombarded” be replaced with neutral language. The court held that substituting those words would maintain neutrality without disturbing the substantive conclusions of the earlier judgment.

The Underlying Dispute and Penalty Orders

The original writ petition, Shatruhan Lal Dadsena v. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission and Others (WPC No. 3944 of 2021), was filed by Shatruhan Lal Dadsena, a resident of Village Ghanaghat, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli. He challenged an order dated 29 May 2021 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Raipur.

That Commission order had imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 in respect of each of four complaint cases — Complaint Case Nos. C/287/2019, C/288/2019, C/289/2019, and C/290/2019 — against Nitin Singhvi. Singhvi was at the material time the Secretary of Gram Panchayat Dongarigardh, District Mungeli, and also the Public Information Officer of that office. The Commission additionally recommended that disciplinary action be initiated against him for failing to furnish information within the time limit prescribed under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The complaints arose from four RTI applications filed by Dadsena on 21 August 2018, each seeking a distinct category of documents related to the grant of forest rights leases within the panchayat's jurisdiction under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. The first application sought a copy of the notice published by the panchayat calling for objections to forest rights lease applications. The second sought documents on the constitution of the Forest Rights Committee, including records relating to the selection of its President and Secretary. The third sought a copy of the list of objections forwarded to the Sub-District Level Committee. The fourth sought copies of all letters received by the panchayat from the Collector, Tehsildar, Forest Department, and ST & SC Department under that Act.

What the May 2026 Judgment Found — and Observed

By its order dated 13 May 2026, the court allowed the writ petition filed by Dadsena. It held that the Commission had entertained the complaints without the applicant having exhausted the statutory appellate remedy. It further found that there was no conclusive finding that the RTI applications had been duly received by Singhvi as PIO, that no proper inquiry had been conducted before imposing the penalty, and that reasonable opportunity of hearing as mandated under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 had not been meaningfully afforded to Singhvi.

The court thus set aside the Commission's penalty orders. However, paragraph 30 of that judgment contained additional observations about Dadsena's conduct as an RTI applicant. The court noted in that paragraph that Dadsena appeared to be “a habitual information seeker” and observed that the four applications had been “bombarded on the PIO” on the same date, seeking information substantially connected with the same subject matter. The judgment also recorded that Dadsena had waited about six months before approaching the Commission and had not availed of the statutory remedy of first appeal.

The Review Petition: Challenge to Adverse Observations

Dadsena, described in the review petition as Respondent No. 3 in the original writ proceedings, filed REVP No. 199 of 2026 seeking recall or expunction of the observations in paragraph 30. His counsel, Ms. Shruti Jha appearing on behalf of Shri Anand Shukla, advanced two principal submissions.

First, the characterisation of Dadsena as a “habitual information seeker” was not an issue that arose for determination in the writ petition. The writ petition concerned only the legality of the State Information Commission's order imposing penalty under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The observation was neither necessary for adjudicating that controversy nor based on any evidence placed before the court, and therefore constituted an unwarranted adverse remark affecting Dadsena's reputation and credibility.

Second, the word “bombarded” was morally wrong as a description of the act of filing four RTI applications. Each of the four applications sought a distinct category of documents maintained under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. Filing separate applications for separate sets of records is not prohibited under the Right to Information Act, 2005, nor is it indicative of abuse of the statutory mechanism. The mere fact that the applications were submitted on the same date could not, without more, support the inference that the applicant was a habitual information seeker.

How the Court Reasoned on Review

Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad acknowledged the review petitioner's grievance but stopped short of fully expunging the observations. The court held that the expressions “habitual information seeker” and “bombarded” in paragraph 30 were not necessary to the judgment's operative conclusions. However, the court also noted that both sentences had been prefaced with hedging language — “it seems” and “it is noticeable” — which qualified the observations as impressionistic rather than determinative findings.

The court's position was that the words, while not constituting formal findings, nonetheless carried the potential to create an adverse impression. Given that the underlying judgment's reasoning and operative directions were unaffected by the choice of language, substituting the contested expressions with neutral equivalents would do no harm to the order. The approach allowed the court to maintain the integrity of its earlier judgment while removing language that could be seen as casting unwarranted aspersions on a citizen exercising statutory rights.

The Specific Substitutions Directed

The court directed two precise textual substitutions in paragraph 30 of the judgment dated 13 May 2026.

The sentence “It seems that Respondent No.3 is a habitual information seeker” was directed to be replaced with “It seems that Respondent No.3 is a regular information seeker.”

The sentence “It is also noticeable from the record that four separate RTI applications were filed on the same date and bombarded on the PIO seeking information substantially connected with the same subject matter” was directed to be substituted with “It is also noticeable from the record that four separate RTI applications were filed on the same date and placed on the PIO seeking information substantially connected with the same subject matter.”

The court was explicit that apart from these two modifications, the order dated 13 May 2026 would remain intact in all other respects.

Outcome

REVP No. 199 of 2026 was disposed of on 3 August 2026 with the two directed substitutions in paragraph 30 of the judgment in WPC No. 3944 of 2021. The substantive findings of the 13 May 2026 order — setting aside the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission's penalty and disciplinary recommendation against Nitin Singhvi — were left undisturbed. The petitioner in the review, Nitin Singhvi, was represented by Smt. Surya Kawalkar Dangi and Ms. Priyanka Bajpai, Advocates.