Indian Express: Bengaluru: Thursday, 20 August 2026.
The Karnataka High Court granted an interim stay on the blacklisting order but orally warned the applicants, including a journalist, that the RTI Act’s benefits ‘will go’ if the law is misused.
More than half of the
45,000 pending second appeals under the Right to Information Act in Karnataka
were filed by nine people whom the state information commission has
subsequently blacklisted, the Karnataka High Court was informed on Wednesday.
As the court heard the nine RTI activists’ petitions challenging the Karnataka Information Commission’s blacklisting order, the KIC’s counsel said their 20,000-plus second appeals were clogging the system and preventing the hearing and deciding of “genuine appeals”.
“If we weed out four of the petitioners, the total pendency before the KIC would come down by 50 per cent,” said advocate G B Sharath Gowda.
Surprised at the statement, Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, “Applications filed by genuine applicants are kept pending.”
One of the petitioners is Jagadeesh M, an advocate and former zilla parishad member who reportedly filed 1,294 RTI applications over six to seven years.
“You have filed one application a day,” the judge said of him.
Another petitioner, G R Sudheendhra, who runs a fortnightly magazine, has filed 6,482 appeals pending before the commission.
“Whatever information I do not get, I file RTI applications for,” his counsel submitted.
Justice Govindaraj then said, “Don’t you have anything else to publish that you are filing applications? Investigating journalism is not RTI journalism.”
The judge also said the benefit of the RTI Act “will go” if the law is misused, adding that the court would have to intervene on behalf of “genuine applicants”.
The commission blacklisted most of the applicants in January 2025 and also imposed a cost on them. Their counsel argued that the RTI Act has neither a provision to blacklist an applicant nor a limit on the number of applications.
The government’s advocate contended that officials were unable to carry out their regular work because of frivolous RTI applications.
The court said it would have to consider both the petitioners’ claim that their applications were genuine and the commission’s contention that their veracity needed examination. However, it granted an interim stay on the blacklisting order.
The court also directed the petitioners to submit affidavits by September 21, detailing all their RTI applications, including where the requested information was planned to be used. It also directed the commission to furnish a list of appeals filed by each of the petitioners.
Petitioners and their pending RTI appeals
Total second appeals pending before the KIC: 45,000
Davalasab M Miyyanavar: 14,478 pending appeals
G R Sudheendhra: 6,482 pending appeals
Dillibabu A: 753 pending appeals
M Shankar: 782 pending appeals
D Mahesha: 540 pending appeals
K Sathish: 334 pending appeals
V Ramakrishnappa: 256 pending appeals
The Karnataka High Court granted an interim stay on the blacklisting order but orally warned the applicants, including a journalist, that the RTI Act’s benefits ‘will go’ if the law is misused.
 |
The Karnataka High Court
said it would have to intervene on behalf of 'genuine applicants'. (File Photo) |
As the court heard the nine RTI activists’ petitions challenging the Karnataka Information Commission’s blacklisting order, the KIC’s counsel said their 20,000-plus second appeals were clogging the system and preventing the hearing and deciding of “genuine appeals”.
“If we weed out four of the petitioners, the total pendency before the KIC would come down by 50 per cent,” said advocate G B Sharath Gowda.
Surprised at the statement, Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, “Applications filed by genuine applicants are kept pending.”
One of the petitioners is Jagadeesh M, an advocate and former zilla parishad member who reportedly filed 1,294 RTI applications over six to seven years.
“You have filed one application a day,” the judge said of him.
Another petitioner, G R Sudheendhra, who runs a fortnightly magazine, has filed 6,482 appeals pending before the commission.
“Whatever information I do not get, I file RTI applications for,” his counsel submitted.
Justice Govindaraj then said, “Don’t you have anything else to publish that you are filing applications? Investigating journalism is not RTI journalism.”
The judge also said the benefit of the RTI Act “will go” if the law is misused, adding that the court would have to intervene on behalf of “genuine applicants”.
The commission blacklisted most of the applicants in January 2025 and also imposed a cost on them. Their counsel argued that the RTI Act has neither a provision to blacklist an applicant nor a limit on the number of applications.
The government’s advocate contended that officials were unable to carry out their regular work because of frivolous RTI applications.
The court said it would have to consider both the petitioners’ claim that their applications were genuine and the commission’s contention that their veracity needed examination. However, it granted an interim stay on the blacklisting order.
The court also directed the petitioners to submit affidavits by September 21, detailing all their RTI applications, including where the requested information was planned to be used. It also directed the commission to furnish a list of appeals filed by each of the petitioners.
Petitioners and their pending RTI appeals
Total second appeals pending before the KIC: 45,000
Davalasab M Miyyanavar: 14,478 pending appeals
G R Sudheendhra: 6,482 pending appeals
Dillibabu A: 753 pending appeals
M Shankar: 782 pending appeals
D Mahesha: 540 pending appeals
K Sathish: 334 pending appeals
V Ramakrishnappa: 256 pending appeals
.JPG)
.JPG)
