"The information sought by such habitual applicants cannot be termed as public interest as the details are sought with the sole intention of either harassing us or settling scores with some third-party," said a senior government official, acting as public information officer (PIO), requesting anonymity.
Thank God. No demand for 1) scrapping of entire Act on such reasons 2) insertion of another exemption clause 3)including the word "May" provide the information in Sec.7 and excluding 'Shall" and removal of time limit altogether.
Why anonymity in giving such bold and frank opinions as a representative of all PIOs ?
Now that Hon IC reads opinion of Hon.CJK, now he may define 'larger public interest' and' habitual' and how "harassment" can be ruled.
I meant professor in law, who has already given a decision to upload the name of such applicant, display the name and address in notice board, upload his information in PA website, but so far even one Public authority has followed the procedure stated by Professor to brand the appellant as 'habitual'.
As I have shared my experience, one may not be surprised if the authorities frame such appellants in a criminal complaint, and plan to get him arrested without a bail in lower courts.