The Karnataka High Court has upheld orders of the Karnataka Information Commission imposing a penalty of ₹25,000 on the Secretary of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and directing initiation of disciplinary proceedings for failure to comply with obligations under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed a writ petition filed by the BDA Secretary challenging the Commission’s orders dated January 1 and February 10, 2026. The petitioner contended that the RTI application and the first appeal had been filed long before he assumed office as Secretary and First Appellate Authority in May 2025, and therefore he could not be held responsible for lapses committed by his predecessors.
Rejecting the contention, the Court held that the office of the First Appellate Authority under the RTI Act is a statutory office and the obligations attached to it travel with the office rather than the individual occupying it. Once an officer assumes charge, he becomes responsible for addressing all pending matters falling within the jurisdiction of that office, including unresolved RTI appeals.
The Court observed that despite assuming charge in May 2025, the petitioner failed to participate in proceedings before the Karnataka Information Commission on multiple dates and took no meaningful steps to dispose of the pending first appeal or furnish the information sought by the applicant. The default, therefore, was not merely historical but continued during the petitioner’s own tenure.
Emphasising the importance of cooperation with statutory authorities under the RTI regime, the Court remarked that notices and proceedings before the Information Commission are not administrative communications that can be ignored at the discretion of public authorities. Non-participation in such proceedings undermines the transparency and accountability framework envisaged by Parliament.
The Court further held that a communication issued by the petitioner in March 2026 directing subordinates to furnish information could not retrospectively cure months of inaction, especially when it was issued only after the Commission had imposed a penalty and directed compliance. Post-facto efforts, the Court said, do not erase established defaults.
Finding no arbitrariness or illegality in the Commission’s decision, the High Court upheld both the penalty and the direction for disciplinary action. The Court also strongly disapproved of the conduct of public authorities who obstruct access to information through indifference or inaction, observing that such behaviour weakens the effectiveness of the RTI framework.
While dismissing the petition, the Court clarified that its order would not prevent competent authorities from examining the role of the petitioner’s predecessors and taking appropriate action for the period during which the RTI appeal remained unattended before he assumed office.
