A decision by the UDF-led Kochi Municipal Corporation to profile individuals and groups who repeatedly submit Right to Information (RTI) petitions has ignited a fierce political dispute. The civic council resolved on Wednesday to gather details regarding the employment background, income sources, and livelihoods of frequent applicants and forward them to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) for financial investigation.

Extortion claims drive council decision

Defending the move, Mayor V K Minimol and ruling councillors stated that the measures strictly target an organized racket misusing the 2005 RTI Act for bribery and extortion. Civic leaders revealed that external agents work alongside corrupt corporation personnel to extract money from property owners. According to council disclosures, these syndicates identify minor construction deviations—ranging from five to fifty centimetres—just as buildings near completion. Unrelated parties from distant regions file petitions to block official completion certificates, subsequently demanding lakhs of rupees in out-of-court settlements. The Mayor highlighted recent Vigilance operations, including arrests in Fort Kochi where an agent who submitted nearly two thousand applications was caught alongside a civic inspector for bribery, while assuring that genuine citizen grievances would not be restricted.

Opposition warns of threat to democratic rights

Conversely, Opposition LDF councillors condemned the decision as an unconstitutional assault on democratic rights and public transparency. Party leaders argued that the RTI Act mandates public information disclosure without requiring citizens to reveal their motives, establish personal connections to the matter, or abide by any limit on the number of applications filed. They asserted that law-abiding authorities should not fear public questioning and warned that monitoring citizens creates a chilling effect that discourages whistleblowing and civic participation. Rejecting extreme council proposals—such as displaying photographs of frequent applicants on office walls—the Opposition maintained that existing legal channels should handle individual wrongdoing rather than implementing blanket profiling that undermines national transparency laws.