The Karnataka High Court on Monday (September 28) censured several RTI applicants challenging their blacklisting by the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC), after the Commission submitted that some petitioners had filed thousands of RTI applications and appeals, including one petitioner who had allegedly filed around 20,000 applications over seven years.

The Court observed that RTI applications cannot be filed "just for the sake of filing it."

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj granted the petitioners two weeks' time to file their statements/detailed affidavits after they submitted that complete details of the applications and appeals filed by them were not available with them.

The Court permitted them to file their statements on the basis of the details available with them and the information furnished by the KIC.

“...The Petitioners seeks for and is granted two weeks' time to file their statements. Since they have expressed that most of the details are not available with them, they are permitted to file their statement on available details…,” the Court noted in its order.

The matters will now be taken up for final hearing on October 29.

On August 19, the Court had directed each petitioner to file a detailed affidavit setting out the total number of RTI applications/appeals filed by them, the dates on which they were filed, the authorities before whom they were filed, the documents or information sought, the reasons for seeking the information and the purpose for which the information/documents were intended to be used.

The KIC was also directed to furnish a complete list of appeals filed by each petitioner before the Commission.

The Court had earlier clarified that the KIC need not proceed with the hearing or disposal of the appeals pending before it which were the subject matter of the petitions, until further orders.

On Monday, the KIC submitted that petitioner Davalasab M Miyyanavar, in WP 11087/2026, had filed around 20,000 applications over seven years.

It was further submitted that Miyyanavar had challenged the blacklisting order before the Dharwad Bench of the High Court, where the challenge was rejected.

The KIC also informed the Court that around Rs 9 lakh in court fees payable in the Dharwad writ petition had not been deposited. It submitted that the Registrar General of the Dharwad Bench had already issued a notice in this regard.

The Court orally asked, “Have you paid Rs 9 lakh court fees? We will issue warrant here since it is not paid. Direct the Registrar General to take adequate steps from land revenue.”

The petitioner informed the Court that the matter had been posted before the Registrar General and that three weeks' time had been sought.

The Court accordingly directed the Registrar General of the Dharwad Bench to look into the issue and place a report regarding compliance.

The KIC submitted that the volume of papers relating to Miyyanavar was so large that a truck would be required to transport them.

The Court observed that such details should be secured and remarked that if the petitioners were engaging in such filing practices, they would be dealt with in accordance with law.

In WP 17771/2026, petitioner G.R. Sudheendra submitted that he had been furnished a copy of the KIC's statement showing 6,482 appeals attributed to him, but not all of them were pending.

He stated that most of the applications filed by him since 2015 had already been disposed of. He also submitted that he runs a fortnightly magazine, which he has been publishing for the past 15 years, and files RTI applications for that purpose.

The KIC submitted that only around 40–45 of the 6,482 appeals were pending.

At this stage, the Court orally observed: “...RTI is for information, but you cannot be filing just for the sake of filing it.”

On the last date of hearing, the court, while hearing the challenge to the blacklisting orders passed by KIC against multiple RTI activists, expressed serious concern over the alleged misuse of RTI Act, noting that a few individuals have filed thousands of appeals, clogging the system and affecting administration.

Case Title: G.R. Sudheendra v. State of Karnataka & Other Connected Matters

Case No: WP 17771/2026 & Ors.