Kochi: A decision by the Kochi Corporation to profile people who frequently file Right to Information (RTI) applications and civic complaints, and share their details with the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), has triggered a political row. While the civic leadership defended it as a move against an alleged extortion racket, the Opposition called it an assault on RTI’s transparency and citizens’ rights.

The issue came up during a general discussion in the Corporation Council on Wednesday after Kadavanthra councillor Gison George of the Kerala Congress alleged that an organised network was exploiting RTI and building-permit disputes to extort money from property owners.

The council resolved to instruct the Corporation Secretary to collect details, including the livelihood and employment backgrounds and sources of income of individuals and organisations repeatedly filing RTI applications and complaints, and forward them to the Vigilance Department for investigation.

Mayor V K Minimol defended the decision, alleging that certain outside agents, allegedly working in collusion with civic personnel, were misusing legal provisions to extract money from building owners.

“Interests and financial sources of complainants who cross the limit would be probed,” the Mayor said. She alleged that people with no direct connection to the matters complained of were repeatedly filing applications and complaints to pressure property owners into financial settlements.

She cited a recent Vigilance case in Fort Kochi in which a Corporation employee and an agent who had allegedly submitted numerous complaints were arrested. Allegations were also raised in the council that some “professional complainants” were filing dozens, and in some cases hundreds, of complaints to delay the issuance of building completion certificates.

However, the mayor maintained that genuine grievances raised by citizens would not be curtailed.

‘Extortion caucus exploiting technicalities’
Gison George alleged that the racket operated by identifying minor deviations in buildings, often after construction was completed.

“What we meant was not just the RTI Act alone,” George told Onmanorama. “A person constructs a building after obtaining a permit. Just before he approaches completion, someone files a complaint with the Corporation. What is funny is that none of these complainants are affected parties. The one filing the complaint is someone from Kolenchery, Kottayam, or Kannur, who has no connection whatsoever,” he said.

According to George, once such a complaint is filed, officials are unable to issue the completion certificate until it is resolved.

“Then the officials will say: ‘Since a complaint is pending, we cannot do anything. Either settle with him...’ When this person is contacted, he demands lakhs of rupees. He looks at what valuation that asset has, calculates a certain percentage for himself, and asks for that. Or else, ‘go ahead and demolish it.’”

George claimed that complainants often target minor violations, ranging from five centimetres to 50 centimetres, which could even escape the attention of senior engineers. He alleged that RTI applications were initially used to obtain details such as building setbacks before complaints were filed.

He cited a case on KP Vallon Road in Kadavanthra where a complaint stalled the completion of a building. He said that calls were subsequently made to local leaders only for the complainant to demand an out-of-court settlement.

George also referred to the Corporation’s K-SMART portal, claiming that one individual had filed more than 100 complaints and was later arrested by the Vigilance along with a Corporation building inspector over bribery.

He suggested that people who file more than 10 to 15 complaints repeatedly and later withdraw or abandon them should be brought under the Vigilance radar.

LDF warns of ‘dangerous precedent’
The proposal drew strong opposition from LDF councillors inside the council and party leaders outside. Thevara councillor Elizabeth questioned the rationale behind scrutinising citizens who exercise their legal right to seek information.

“If nothing wrong has been done, there is no need to fear questions,” she said, arguing that asking questions and filing complaints are democratic rights protected by law.

She warned that monitoring citizens merely because they submit multiple petitions could create a chilling effect on public scrutiny. “Isn’t such vigilance only necessary if there is something to hide?” she asked.

LDF Parliamentary Party Leader V A Sreejith termed the proposed profiling of RTI applicants unconstitutional. “That is against constitutional policy itself, of the Constitution,” Sreejith said. “It was the UPA government, with the support of the Left, that brought the Right to Information Act, brought the bill, and passed it. If anyone is misusing that bill, the machinery to detect that misuse exists in our country, doesn’t it?”

The opposition also slammed the decision by pointing out that the RTI Act does not prescribe a limit on the number of applications a citizen can file or require applicants to establish their locus standi or disclose their motives.

They argued that the Corporation’s statutory responsibility is to provide public information within the prescribed timelines, and warned that profiling RTI applicants and sharing their details with anti-corruption agencies could discourage legitimate scrutiny, whistleblowing and civic participation.

Sreejith criticised the proposal to identify and profile frequent applicants instead of acting against specific instances of misuse. “If there are wrongdoers, catch them. But bringing a decision that undermines an existing law of the country is practically a crime.”