SCC Online: Bengaluru: Tuesday, 28 October 2025.
Karnataka High Court: In a
writ petition filed by petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution, seeking to quash orders rejecting his application for information
related to accused’s passport and Lookout Circular (‘LOC’) details under the Right
to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’), a Single-Judge Bench of Suraj Govindaraj,
J., dismissed the petition. The Court upheld the rejection of the RTI
application for disclosure of the accused’s passport and LOC details, holding
that such information is personal and its disclosure could endanger the life or
physical safety of the concerned person, thereby being exempt under Section
8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
Background
The petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’). The accused in the matter had absconded, and an LOC was issued. Subsequently, the accused was detained at Mumbai International Airport and later released. The petitioner then filed an application under the RTI Act seeking a copy of the passport of the accused, the date on which the LOC was issued against the accused and a copy of the LOC.
All information and records about the accused’s detention and subsequent release at Mumbai International Airport were available with the Superintendent of Police (‘SP’). The Public Information Officer, 4th respondent, rejected the application, noting that the information sought could not be furnished in view of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The application was also rejected on the ground that the document pertained to the Special Branch, and in terms of a notification issued under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, the RTI Act does not apply to Special Branches in District Police Offices. Challenging this, the petitioner approached the First Appellate Authority, 3rd Respondent, who rejected the application, holding that the original rejection was proper and correct.
An appeal was then filed before the State Information Commission, 2nd respondent, who also rejected the second appeal. Challenging all these orders, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Analysis and Decision
The Court, upon a perusal of the record, noted that the petitioner sought the accused passport copy, a copy of the LOC, and related documents. The Court perused Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which exempts disclosure information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
The Court noted that the 4th Respondent had also rejected the application because the RTI Act was not applicable to the special units in terms of the notification issued under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act. Section 24(4) states that the RTI Act shall not apply to certain intelligence and security organisations established by the State Government, which the Government may specify by notification and since the rejection contended that a notification had been issued exempting the special branches of the District Police Officers, the RTI Act would not be applicable.
The Court noted that the State Information Commission had also taken into account the judgment of the K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, and concluded that the information sought would be governed by the law of privacy and, as such, could not be granted. Reference was also made to Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, which exempts information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identity the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes.
The Court observed that the disclosure of information like a passport, being personal in nature, would cause immense harm and injury to a person. The Court reasoned that the details of a passport are private to a person. If these details were made available to any third party, including the petitioner who has filed Section 138 of NI Act proceedings, it could cause danger to the life or physical safety of the person concerned.
In light of the afore-stated reasons, the Court found no infirmity in the orders passed by the Public Information Officer (4th Respondent), the First Appellate Authority (3rd Respondent), and the State Information Commission (2nd Respondent).
The Court noted that the petitioner was at liberty to make an application in the ongoing prosecution proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act for the summoning of those documents, which the Court in its wisdom could consider.
With this liberty, the Court dismissed the petition.
[Prakash Chimanlal Sheth v. State of Karnataka, WP No. 17341 of 2025, decided on 16-10-2025]
Background
The petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’). The accused in the matter had absconded, and an LOC was issued. Subsequently, the accused was detained at Mumbai International Airport and later released. The petitioner then filed an application under the RTI Act seeking a copy of the passport of the accused, the date on which the LOC was issued against the accused and a copy of the LOC.
All information and records about the accused’s detention and subsequent release at Mumbai International Airport were available with the Superintendent of Police (‘SP’). The Public Information Officer, 4th respondent, rejected the application, noting that the information sought could not be furnished in view of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The application was also rejected on the ground that the document pertained to the Special Branch, and in terms of a notification issued under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, the RTI Act does not apply to Special Branches in District Police Offices. Challenging this, the petitioner approached the First Appellate Authority, 3rd Respondent, who rejected the application, holding that the original rejection was proper and correct.
An appeal was then filed before the State Information Commission, 2nd respondent, who also rejected the second appeal. Challenging all these orders, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Analysis and Decision
The Court, upon a perusal of the record, noted that the petitioner sought the accused passport copy, a copy of the LOC, and related documents. The Court perused Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which exempts disclosure information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
The Court noted that the 4th Respondent had also rejected the application because the RTI Act was not applicable to the special units in terms of the notification issued under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act. Section 24(4) states that the RTI Act shall not apply to certain intelligence and security organisations established by the State Government, which the Government may specify by notification and since the rejection contended that a notification had been issued exempting the special branches of the District Police Officers, the RTI Act would not be applicable.
The Court noted that the State Information Commission had also taken into account the judgment of the K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, and concluded that the information sought would be governed by the law of privacy and, as such, could not be granted. Reference was also made to Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, which exempts information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identity the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes.
The Court observed that the disclosure of information like a passport, being personal in nature, would cause immense harm and injury to a person. The Court reasoned that the details of a passport are private to a person. If these details were made available to any third party, including the petitioner who has filed Section 138 of NI Act proceedings, it could cause danger to the life or physical safety of the person concerned.
In light of the afore-stated reasons, the Court found no infirmity in the orders passed by the Public Information Officer (4th Respondent), the First Appellate Authority (3rd Respondent), and the State Information Commission (2nd Respondent).
The Court noted that the petitioner was at liberty to make an application in the ongoing prosecution proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act for the summoning of those documents, which the Court in its wisdom could consider.
With this liberty, the Court dismissed the petition.
[Prakash Chimanlal Sheth v. State of Karnataka, WP No. 17341 of 2025, decided on 16-10-2025]
.JPG)
.JPG)
