Statutory Obligations Travel With Office, Not Individual Incumbent: Karnataka High Court Rules On RTI Liability Of Successor Officers : By Agatha Shukla

Verdictum: Karnataka: Friday, 26 June 2026.
Holding that a public servant cannot ignore pending RTI proceedings inherited from a predecessor, the Court affirmed a ₹25,000 penalty imposed on a BDA Secretary for continuing institutional apathy and non-representation.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj, Karnataka High Court 

The Karnataka High Court has held that the office of the First Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act is a statutory position rather than a personal office, meaning all associated legal obligations travel with the office regardless of changes in personnel.
The Court ruled that an incoming officer cannot escape liability for non-compliance by merely projecting historical defaults onto their predecessors, especially when a pattern of institutional neglect and non-representation continues during their own active tenure.
The facts revealed and absence of diligence, as no representative appeared on behalf of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) during successive hearings before the Commission. Taking serious note of this protracted inaction, the Commission passed an order on January 1, 2026, imposing a personal penalty of ₹25,000 on the authority and directing immediate disclosure.
Court Justice Suraj Govindaraj while dismissing a writ petition challenging the punitive actions of the State Information Commission, observed, “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”.
“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 Bench further noted.
Advocate Murugesh V. Charati appeared for the petitioner and Advocate G.B. Sharath Gowda appeared for the respondent.
The matter originated from an RTI application filed by Respondent No. 2 on February 6, 2023, seeking certain information from the Bangalore Development Authority. Due to initial non-disclosure, the applicant filed a first appeal on March 9, 2023.
The petitioner, Shivakumar C.L., subsequently assumed charge as the Secretary of the BDA and the designated First Appellate Authority on May 8, 2025. Despite the transfer of office, the information remained un-furnished and the first appeal lay dormant. Consequently, the applicant approached the Karnataka Information Commission, which listed the second appeal for multiple hearings throughout 2025.
Upon further non-compliance, the Commission issued a show-cause notice on February 10, 2026, for initiating disciplinary proceedings, which prompted the petitioner to approach the High Court.
Rejecting the petitioner's primary defense that the defaults occurred prior to his appointment, the Bench observed that the petitioner failed to show any bona fide efforts or entry of appearance during his tenure, and noted that his subsequent directive to subordinate staff was an ex-post facto attempt to evade consequences. The Court clarified that post-penalty compliance cannot retrospectively erase months of active statutory neglect.
“The timing of the communication assumes particular significance. If the petitioner was genuinely diligent in discharging his statutory obligations, there is no explanation as to why similar directions were not issued immediately upon his assumption of office, or at the very least after receipt of notices from the Commission. The absence of any such contemporaneous action renders the subsequent communication of little evidentiary value”, the Bench noted.
“The conduct displayed in the present matter deserves serious disapproval. Public authorities functioning under the Right to Information Act occupy a position of trust and are expected to facilitate access to information rather than obstruct it through indifference or inaction. Failure to participate in proceedings before the Commission and failure to discharge statutory obligations undermine the legislative intent of promoting transparency and accountability in governance. Such conduct cannot be lightly condoned, lest it dilute the effectiveness of the statutory regime established under the Act”, the Bench further observed.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no illegality or procedural infirmity in the Commission's orders. However, the Court clarified that the dismissal would not preclude competent authorities from investigating the specific role of the petitioner’s predecessors and initiating separate lawful action for the delays committed prior to May 8, 2025.
Cause Title: Shivakumar C.L. v. The State Information Commissioner, Karnataka Information Commission and Another
(Click here to download Judgment)