Whether a person can file repeated application for information under RTI on same subject?

Answer-i)             The principle of res judicata applies to judicial proceedings and RTI application is not a proceeding,

ii)           The RTI application  is not a free service but a paid service under a right given by Parliament,  

iii)          The PIOs are servants of this democracy paid out of funds contributed by citizens and not masters AND the time and sources belongs to public. They work for   money and still they feel harassed providing information against prescribed fees.

iv)           The Act does not bar  filing of  frequent applications,

v)            An information obtained earlier may be lost at the hands of an applicant and he may require the same again,

vi)          The status of information may change at a later stage for the reason of progress – specially  when  an ATR report is called for on a letter as the suo mottu disclosures u/s 4  requires updatation after every 6 months,

vii)         Most of the PIOs have not complied with provisions of suo motu disclosure and thereby inviting filing of frequent applications by aspirant applicants. In the given situation, applicants could not be blamed when the PIOs and Commission are not serious and sincere to their legal obligations to adhere to the time bound proactive disclosure.  

viii)       Information may be refused those exempted from disclosure u/s 8 only. The Legislature is aware of the situation and it had not provided for exemption of information given earlier to an applicant. The Commission or the PIO has no authority to cook new grounds for exemption. If the PIO feels that he is being harassed by frequent applications better he should comply with suo motu disclosure and refer to URLs in response to such applications.  Contrary to the position PIO has not been complying with suo mottu disclosure and thereby infringing the benevolent Right of Citizens given by Legislature, and harassing & compelling them to apply unnecessarily for information required which would have been in public domain otherwise.    

ix)          There is no bar to obtaining number of copies or file frequent applications for copy of a record from judicial or quasi-judicial bodies after paying the prescribed fees,