Indian Express: Bengaluru: Tuesday, 01 September 2026.
The Karnataka High Court termed the RTI application ‘yet another case of abuse’ of the law and said the activist failed to explain the purpose of his plea.
The Karnataka High Court
on Monday dismissed a petition filed by an activist who approached the court
after being denied details of penalties and disciplinary action against public
information officers (PIOs) who had failed to provide information under the
Right to Information Act.
A bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said the Karnataka Information Commission does not maintain such information and that the activist, Ramesh Babu N, “was unable to furnish the reason why this information is sought”.
Replying to the judge’s question about the purpose for which Babu had sought the information, his counsel said the activist was a “public-spirited person”.
Section 6(2) of the Right to Information Act states that an applicant shall not be required to give any reason for requesting information or any personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting them.
“This court is of the opinion that this is yet another case of abuse of RTI Act. It is not only abuse of RTI which this court would have to look at but the effect of the abuse of the Act,” Justice Govindaraj said in his order.
“The RTI Act, being a beneficial enactment for the purpose of securing information to those in need of information, cannot be misused or abused to any person seeking information for the purpose of a roving/fishing inquiry into the action taken under Section 20,” he added.
Babu moved the court after the commission rejected his application for details of the erring PIOs and the total fines collected from them in 2021-22 as per sections 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act. He also asked for details of PIOs who refused to pay fines, as well as action initiated against them.
Advocate G B Sharath Gowda, appearing for the commission, submitted, “We are not expected to maintain these details. What happens is we direct the penalty to be paid by the PIOs to the state exchequer, and we direct the superior officer of the concerned department to collect it and deposit it with the state government.”
‘Genuine applicants pay the price’
The court also observed that if a few people misuse the RTI Act, genuine applicants may be denied the information they seek or face delays while “frivolous or vexatious applications” are considered.
“Though this court would look at encouraging applications under the RTI Act, this court would also look at discouraging the abuse of the RTI Act,” Justice Govindaraj added.
After the petition was dismissed, the court orally clarified that RTI applications should have valid reasons even though the commission or PIOs need not adjudicate them.
“If the information is sought for publishing or research, the information has to be furnished. If the petitioner had given a valid reason, we may have allowed it,” the court added.
The court also referred to a case where more than half of the 45,000 pending RTI appeals were filed by nine people whom the state information commission has subsequently blacklisted.
The Karnataka High Court termed the RTI application ‘yet another case of abuse’ of the law and said the activist failed to explain the purpose of his plea.
 |
| The activist moved the Karnataka High Court after the information commission rejected his application for details of PIOs who withheld information and the fines collected from them in 2021-22. (File Photo) |
A bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said the Karnataka Information Commission does not maintain such information and that the activist, Ramesh Babu N, “was unable to furnish the reason why this information is sought”.
Replying to the judge’s question about the purpose for which Babu had sought the information, his counsel said the activist was a “public-spirited person”.
Section 6(2) of the Right to Information Act states that an applicant shall not be required to give any reason for requesting information or any personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting them.
“This court is of the opinion that this is yet another case of abuse of RTI Act. It is not only abuse of RTI which this court would have to look at but the effect of the abuse of the Act,” Justice Govindaraj said in his order.
“The RTI Act, being a beneficial enactment for the purpose of securing information to those in need of information, cannot be misused or abused to any person seeking information for the purpose of a roving/fishing inquiry into the action taken under Section 20,” he added.
Babu moved the court after the commission rejected his application for details of the erring PIOs and the total fines collected from them in 2021-22 as per sections 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act. He also asked for details of PIOs who refused to pay fines, as well as action initiated against them.
Advocate G B Sharath Gowda, appearing for the commission, submitted, “We are not expected to maintain these details. What happens is we direct the penalty to be paid by the PIOs to the state exchequer, and we direct the superior officer of the concerned department to collect it and deposit it with the state government.”
‘Genuine applicants pay the price’
The court also observed that if a few people misuse the RTI Act, genuine applicants may be denied the information they seek or face delays while “frivolous or vexatious applications” are considered.
“Though this court would look at encouraging applications under the RTI Act, this court would also look at discouraging the abuse of the RTI Act,” Justice Govindaraj added.
After the petition was dismissed, the court orally clarified that RTI applications should have valid reasons even though the commission or PIOs need not adjudicate them.
“If the information is sought for publishing or research, the information has to be furnished. If the petitioner had given a valid reason, we may have allowed it,” the court added.
The court also referred to a case where more than half of the 45,000 pending RTI appeals were filed by nine people whom the state information commission has subsequently blacklisted.
.JPG)
.JPG)
