Public Information Officer Not Legally Bound To Start Investigative Process U/S 7 Of RTI Act: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court in a recent decision held that the Public Information Officer does not have any power or duty under section 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to open up an investigation while processing and disposing RTI Applications.The judgment was passed by Justice N. Nagaresh while hearing a Writ Petition seeking a direction against the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Principal of the respondent College.The petitioner had been appointed as the Principal following a due selection process and approval of the University. Later, the University sought to withdraw the approval and to initiate action against the petitioner for alleged negligent acts committed when he was the Public Information Officer of the College. The allegation was that the petitioner should have shown care to verify the authenticity of the certificates of a student on receipt of RTI applications that sought information as regards the Degree Certificates submitted by the said student.Clarifying the duty of a Public Information Officer, the learned Single Judge observed:“When the petitioner was the Public Information Officer and when he received RTI applications, he has acted as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. There is no negligence or default on the part of the petitioner in processing and disposing of the RTI applications. The allegation is that when RTI applications were received, he should have investigated the issue raised by the RTI Applicant. As long as the petitioner is not the competent officer to deal with such complaint and as long as no specific complaint regarding any forged document is received, a Public Information Officer is not legally bound to start any investigation process. A Public Information Officer has no such power or obligation under Section 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.”The Court further noted that even an isolated incident of negligence cannot be a ground to decline approval of appointment when it was made after a due process. The respondents were directed to confirm the provisional appointment of the petitioner, which was made following the earlier interim order passed by the Court.Case No: WP(C) No. 13319 of 2024Case Title: Dr. Muhammed Thaha v. The Director of Collegiate Education and othersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 276Counsel for Petitioner: Nisha George, George Poonthottam (Sr.) and A.L. Navaneeth KrishnanCounsel for Respondents: Thomas Abraham, Standing CounselClick to Read/Download Order

Public Information Officer Not Legally Bound To Start Investigative Process U/S 7 Of RTI Act: Kerala High Court

K. Salma Jennath

Tags