Karnataka High Court Upholds Penalty Under RTI Act, Says Successor Officer Can't Blame Predecessor For Pending Matters

The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a plea by the Secretary of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), challenging the imposition of a Rs 25,000 penalty and directions for disciplinary proceedings against him by the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) for failure to furnish information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 223]The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that the responsibilities to be borne by the First Appellate Authority [BDA Secretary] under the RTI Act do not get extinguished with the expiry of the term of 'an individual incumbent'. A public servant cannot avoid statutory responsibilities on the basis that the proceedings in question originated during the term of his previous incumbent officer, the court added.“…The office of the First Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act is not a personal office but a statutory office. The obligations attached thereto travel with the office and not with the individual incumbent. Once the petitioner assumed charge as Secretary, BDA and consequently as the First Appellate Authority on 08.05.2025, he became responsible for all pending matters requiring attention within the jurisdiction of that office, including the appeal preferred by Respondent No. 2”, the court underscored in the order.For context, the petitioner- secretary of the BDA, who had acted in the capacity of the First Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, approached the High Court seeking to set aside the order dated January 1, 2026, passed by the Karnataka Information Commission.The issue arose when Respondent No. 2 filed an RTI application in February 2023 seeking information from BDA. When the information was not furnished within the prescribed period, the applicant preferred a first appeal on March 9, 2023. However, no order was passed on the appeal by the First Appellate Authority for an extended period.Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 approached the Karnataka Information Commission, the Second appellate authority. Before KIC, there was allegedly 'no representation on behalf of the respondent authority' or any attempt to furnish the information sought by the Respondent No. 2 in the first place. Hence, KIC imposed a penalty of Rs 25K on the First Appellate Authority [BDA Secretary] on January 1, 2026. A direction was also issued for furnishing the information sought by Respondent No. 2 swiftly. Later, in February, a show cause notice was also issued to BDA to show why the information was not provided even after KIC's order from January.Before the High Court, the Petitioner Secretary argued that he took charge on May 28, 2025 whereas the RTI application was filed in 2023. According to the Secretary, the first appeal was also preferred by Respondent No.2 in 2023 itself. Lapses, if any, have occurred prior to his assumption of charge, argued the Secretary. Complying with the KIC's order, the Secretary had even intimated the Dy. Secretary to furnish the information sought by Respondent No. 2, it was submitted. However, the court refused to agree with the petitioner Secretary's contentions. After perusing the timeline, the court noted that the default was not confined to the period prior to the petitioner taking charge. Even the proceedings before the KIC that occurred in 2025 July, August and November was post the transfer-appointment of the new BDA Secretary, the court pointed out. Yet, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner Secretary before the Commission on any of these dates, the court observed. Even after imposition of penalty in January 2026, none appeared for the Secretary on the next posting date in February 2026, the court added further. "Thus, the conduct complained of is not confined to a historical default inherited from predecessors; rather, it encompasses a series of omissions committed during the petitioner's own tenure… A public servant assuming charge of a statutory office cannot ignore pending proceedings merely because they originated during the tenure of his predecessor. Acceptance of such a contention would result in administrative paralysis and would enable statutory obligations to be indefinitely postponed by the simple expedient of transfer of officers, a consequence wholly contrary to the object and purpose of the Right to Information Act…”, the single judge bench explained.The single judge bench also censured the BDA Secretary for adopting a lukewarm approach about the proceedings before the Karnataka Information Commission: “...Orders, notices and proceedings before the Commission are not mere administrative communications that may be ignored at the discretion of public authorities. The efficacy of the statutory framework established under the Act depends substantially upon the cooperation of Public Information Officers and First Appellate Authorities with the Commission. Non-participation in proceedings before the Commission strikes at the very foundation of the...

Karnataka High Court Upholds Penalty Under RTI Act, Says Successor Officer Can't Blame Predecessor For Pending Matters

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

Karnataka High Court Upholds Penalty Under RTI Act, Says Successor Officer Can't Blame Predecessor For Pending Matters

Sebin James

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers