Can an RTI application be called vexatious or frivolous?

In the UK's Freedom of Information Act, a public authority can refuse a request as “vexatious.” The Indian RTI Act has no equivalent explicit provision. Yet PIOs routinely cite “vexatious” or “frivolous” as a reason for refusal — and most of these refusals are wrong.

The CIC and courts have held that “vexatious” is an extremely high bar. A request is vexatious only if it is: (a) made solely to harass or embarrass a specific officer personally (not to get information), (b) repetitive to the point of constituting an abuse of process, or © completely divorced from any legitimate informational purpose.

Example of what IS NOT vexatious: Asking for all files and noting sheets on a government decision that you think was corrupt — even if the PIO finds it uncomfortable. The CIC has consistently held that requests probing government decisions are not vexatious, no matter how large the volume.

Example of what MAY be vexatious: Filing 50 RTIs per week to the same officer's personal address asking for information you have already received, with no new informational purpose, with an evident intent to harass.

• “Vexatious” is the most abused PIO excuse. PIOs use it to block legitimate accountability requests. Almost every such refusal should be appealed.
• The standard is very high. Courts have held that an RTI cannot be called vexatious merely because it is large, political, embarrassing to the authority, or part of a series of applications.
• §7(8)(i) requires written reasons. A PIO who cites “vexatious” must specify in writing exactly why — if the reasoning is thin, the FAA or CIC will overturn it.
• Counter-argument in appeal. Cite: “The RTI Act contains no explicit vexatious clause. The CIC standard (citing order no. ___) requires the PIO to establish clear harassment intent with no legitimate informational purpose. No such showing has been made.”

To call an RTI vexatious, the CIC requires the PIO to show:

1. The applicant's dominant purpose is harassment of an individual officer, not information access.
2. No new or different information is being sought that was not already provided.
3. Continuing to respond would impose an unjustifiable administrative burden and the applicant's informational purpose is nil.

All three must generally be satisfied.

• §8 — the exhaustive exemption list; “vexatious” is not one of them.
• §7(8)(i) — PIO must give written reasons for any refusal.
• §19(1) — First Appeal against vexatious rejection.
• CIC case law — multiple orders from Information Commissioners Shailesh Gandhi and M.A. Khan on vexatious standard.

• First Appeal Builder — drafts appeal against unlawful vexatious rejection.
• Exemption Analyzer — analyses PIO rejection reasoning.

Filing multiple RTIs on different topics is not automatically vexatious. Filing the same RTI repeatedly after receiving a full answer may be. If you are filing many RTIs systematically (e.g., social audit), note in each application the distinct informational purpose.

Volume is not vexatiousness. The PIO can charge copy fees for a large request, or offer inspection instead of copies under §7(9). But they cannot reject it as frivolous because of size.

File a First Appeal citing §7(8)(i) (failure to state which §8 sub-clause applies — because there is no “vexatious” sub-clause), §19(5) (burden on PIO to justify refusal), and the CIC's narrow vexatious standard. The First Appeal Builder generates this automatically.

• Right to Information Act, 2005 — §§8, 7(8), 19(1), 19(5)
• CIC orders on vexatious standard (Shailesh Gandhi era)
• UK FOIA §14 (contrast — India has no equivalent provision)

Last reviewed: May 2026. Part of the RTI Wiki definitions series.