This election commission matter needs to be resolved as soon as possible. It's the duty of the ruling government to restore the confidence which the election commission has lost in previous months because all those acquisitions which Rahul Gandhi has made, if even one percent of them is true then it is a matter of serious concern. If BJP can find the loopholes in the present election scenarios there is no guarantee that Congress will not do it. It is a matter of serious concern for a democratic country like India. We need to resolve it so that the confidence of this country can be restored.
Mohammad Fahad
More efficiently work
The biggest advantage of having ips officers from their own state is that they work more efficiently.
Dhirendra

Can repetition of an RTI application be a ground of refusal?

The Appellant sought details of income of Appellant’s estranged spouse. The Respondent stated that information has been initially denied to the Appellant under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act on receipt of objection letter from the third party under Section 11 of the RTI Act. However, upon receipt of hearing notice from the CIC, a revised reply as per RTI Act giving numeric figures of income sought has already been given to the appellant. The CIC noted that after initial denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the Respondent furnished a revised reply to the Appellant. During the hearing, it was also observed that similar Second Appeals of the Appellant was earlier heard and disposed of by the Commission bearing case File No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001539 dated 12.01.2017, CIC/LICOI/A/2019/162743 dated 10.08.2021 and CIC/LICOI/A/2023/148347 dated 16.04.2025. The CIC has been ordering relief in cases where the applicant’s spouse alleges marital discord and seeks information i.e. gross and net taxable income of their spouse in pursuance of a case pending for maintenance and the Respondent has already shared the generic details of income of Appellant’s estranged spouse vide written submission which is in the spirit of the RTI Act. The CIC held that once an RTI application is answered, the appellants shall refrain themselves from filing another RTI application against the public authority as once information is received and held by them or posted in public domain, because such information is deemed to have ceased to be 'held' by the public authority. Repetition shall be grounds for refusal.
Comments
Seeking the details of the spouse's income is not an uncommon issue in the RTI arena. The CIC has directed for the disclosure of gross income in some cases. In this case, the CIC has spoken out strongly against repeat RTI applications directing that ‘Repetition shall be ground of refusal’ creating a new ground for rejection of information.
Citation: Archana Singh v. LIC of India, CIC/LICOI/A/2024/108893, Date of Decision: 25.08.2025

Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an accomplished Right to Information (RTI) consultant currently working with the IIM Visakhapatnam. She is the co-author of two widely acclaimed books, PIO's Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. She conducts training programmes, workshops, and capacity-building sessions on the RTI Act. She also provides consultancy services on RTI implementation, compliance, and third-party audits. Her weekly article is being published on this website since 2008 other articles and publications can be accessed on the RTI Foundation website at: www.rtifoundationofindia.com