Karnataka High Court Upholds KIC Action Against BDA Secretary in RTI Case
Total Views |
New Delhi, June 16: The Karnataka High Court on Monday refused to interfere with the disciplinary action recommended by the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) against Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) Secretary Shivakumar C.L.
"On the dates that the matter was taken up by the KIC, the said action on part of the petitioner cannot be countenanced either in law or fact. In fact, such conduct is required to be deprecated, which this Court does."
Consequently, on January 1, 2026, the KIC imposed a penalty of 225,000 and directed that the information be furnished. When the matter was listed again on February 10, 2026, the KIC found that there was still no appearance by the BDA Secretary. It proceeded to direct the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him.
This turn of events was then challenged by the BDA Secretary before the High Court. His counsel, Advocate MV Charati, argued that the delay originated during the tenure of Shivakumar's predecessors and that the petitioner had assumed office only on May 8, 2025.
He contended that the petitioner, being only the first appellate authority and not the Public Information Officer, could not be held liable for the denial of information that related to the year 2023. It was also submitted that on March 12, 2026, the petitioner had instructed the Deputy Secretary to furnish the information sought.
"Even after the petitioner took charge on 8.5.2025, no order had been passed for the rest of the year, that is, from May to December 2025. The letter that the petitioner relies upon, addressed by the petitioner to the Deputy Secretary, is dated 12.3.2026, much after the order dated 1.1.2026 had been passed (by KIC), "the Court observed.
The Bench proceeded to term Shivakumar's argument an attempt to hoodwink the Court.
"The said reliance on the letter dated 12.3.2026 is completely misconceived and, in my considered opinion, is an attempt to hoodwink this Court, which is not permissible Justice Govindarai said
During the hearing, the Bench also questioned the petitioner over his inaction after assuming office.
"You are supposed to do it in 45 days. What did you do with your appeal? You were the First Appellate Authority. First appeal was filed on 9.3.2023. What did you do after that?... From 8.5.2025 to 1.1.2026, what did you do?"
When it was argued that earlier files would come to notice only when placed before the officer, the Bench remarked that authorities must put systems in place to ensure prompt action.
"So you'll sit on the application? We won't allow the recall of disciplinary action...You set your house in order. You put a system in place so that you are informed, because you are the first appellate authority," the judge remarked.
Finding no fault in the Karnataka Information Commission's (KIC) orders, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition filed by BDA Secretary Shivakumar C.L.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that the officer's conduct was unacceptable and stated that the Court would not allow any attempt to "hoodwink" the judicial process.
The Court dismissed Shivakumar's petition challenging the KIC's orders, which had imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 and recommended disciplinary proceedings against him for failing to comply with directions issued under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Proceedings before the KIC were held on July 8, August 12 and November 5, 2025, during which there was no representation on behalf of the BDA Secretary and no action was taken to furnish the requested information.
"On the dates that the matter was taken up by the KIC, the said action on part of the petitioner cannot be countenanced either in law or fact. In fact, such conduct is required to be deprecated, which this Court does."
Consequently, on January 1, 2026, the KIC imposed a penalty of 225,000 and directed that the information be furnished. When the matter was listed again on February 10, 2026, the KIC found that there was still no appearance by the BDA Secretary. It proceeded to direct the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him.
This turn of events was then challenged by the BDA Secretary before the High Court. His counsel, Advocate MV Charati, argued that the delay originated during the tenure of Shivakumar's predecessors and that the petitioner had assumed office only on May 8, 2025.
He contended that the petitioner, being only the first appellate authority and not the Public Information Officer, could not be held liable for the denial of information that related to the year 2023. It was also submitted that on March 12, 2026, the petitioner had instructed the Deputy Secretary to furnish the information sought.
"Even after the petitioner took charge on 8.5.2025, no order had been passed for the rest of the year, that is, from May to December 2025. The letter that the petitioner relies upon, addressed by the petitioner to the Deputy Secretary, is dated 12.3.2026, much after the order dated 1.1.2026 had been passed (by KIC), "the Court observed.
The Bench proceeded to term Shivakumar's argument an attempt to hoodwink the Court.
"The said reliance on the letter dated 12.3.2026 is completely misconceived and, in my considered opinion, is an attempt to hoodwink this Court, which is not permissible Justice Govindarai said
During the hearing, the Bench also questioned the petitioner over his inaction after assuming office.
"You are supposed to do it in 45 days. What did you do with your appeal? You were the First Appellate Authority. First appeal was filed on 9.3.2023. What did you do after that?... From 8.5.2025 to 1.1.2026, what did you do?"
When it was argued that earlier files would come to notice only when placed before the officer, the Bench remarked that authorities must put systems in place to ensure prompt action.
"So you'll sit on the application? We won't allow the recall of disciplinary action...You set your house in order. You put a system in place so that you are informed, because you are the first appellate authority," the judge remarked.
Finding no fault in the Karnataka Information Commission's (KIC) orders, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition filed by BDA Secretary Shivakumar C.L.
The Court also clarified that the competent authorities are free to initiate action against the petitioner's predecessor, who failed to take any decision on the RTI first appeal filed on March 9, 2023. The appeal remained pending until Shivakumar assumed charge as BDA Secretary in May 2025.