Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

Karnataka Court Orders Release of Service Particulars under RTI Act, Quashes Previous Denial

04 September 2024 11:20 AM

By: Admin


In a significant decision, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishna S Dixit of the Karnataka High Court delivered a ruling today, upholding the right to information and quashing the denial of an RTI application. The case involved A. S. Mallikarjunaswamy, a Physics lecturer, seeking access to service particulars of certain individuals for the purpose of addressing service-related grievances.

The petitioner had challenged the order dated April 1, 2022, issued by the Karnataka Information Commission, which negated the RTI application based on the provisions of Sec.8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Petitioner A. S. Mallikarjunaswamy, who represented himself, argued that the denial was based on a wrongful interpretation of the aforementioned section and that the requested information was crucial for resolving his service-related claims, including issues of confirmation, seniority, and promotion.

The court, while observing the petitioner's non-stranger status to the institution and his legitimate need for the requested information, held that the earlier denial was in error. The court further emphasized that the precedent cited, the Girish Ramchandra Deshpande case, was not applicable in the current context due to differing facts.

Justice Dixit's ruling highlighted the principle that judicial decisions serve as authorities for the specific facts of a case, not universally logical propositions. Quoting Lord Halsbury, the court pointed out that "a case is only an authority for what it actually decides."

"The petitioner's quest for service particulars is warranted for addressing his service-related grievances and benefiting from the government order," Justice Dixit noted. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the respondent was directed to provide the requested information within three weeks. The court also prescribed penalties for delays in furnishing the information, underscoring the importance of upholding citizens' right to information.

This ruling signifies the courts' commitment to ensuring the accessibility of information, especially in matters affecting individuals' livelihoods. The judgement echoes the principles of fairness and transparency enshrined in the Right to Information Act.

"The decision cited in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande had a different fact matrix and therefore the Apex Court held that personal information cannot be furnished," the court noted, emphasizing the unique nature of each legal precedent. This ruling sets a precedent in recognizing the nuanced applicability of judicial decisions to distinct circumstances.

As the court paves the way for greater accountability and access to information, it reaffirms the significance of upholding individual rights while acknowledging the complexity of legal interpretations. The judgement serves as a milestone in the ongoing efforts to strike a balance between the right to privacy and the public's right to know.

Date of Decision: 22nd August, 2023

A S MALLIKARJUNASWAMY vs  STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

Latest Legal News