Rigours of UAPA Melt Before Article 21: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail After Six Years of Incarceration Accused Cannot Challenge in Arguments What He Never Challenged in Cross-Examination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Counterblast Plea, Civil Dispute Defence No Shield When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-Driver Accused Of Outraging Modesty Lawyers Who Burned a Colleague's Furniture for Defending Toll Workers Have Tainted a Noble Profession: Supreme Court A Suspicious Dying Declaration Cannot Hang a Man: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction IQ of 65, Memory Loss, Frontal Lobe Damage: Supreme Court Holds Brain-Injured Manager Suffered 100% Functional Disability, Enhances Compensation to ₹97.73 Lakh Cannot Be Forced to Pay Gratuity to Retired Employees Who Refuse to Vacate Company Quarters: Supreme Court Victim Who Incited Riot Inside Court Cannot Blame Accused for Trial Delay: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Section 307 Case You Cannot Sell What You Don’t Own: ‘Vendor’s Half Share Means Buyer Gets Only Half’ : Andhra Pradesh High Court Nagaland's Oil Laws Face Constitutional Challenge: Gauhati High Court Sends Union-State Dispute to Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 3 CPC | Will's Validity Cannot Be Decided in Substitution Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court 6-Year-Old Loses Arm To Live 11kV Wire Passing 'Almost Touching' Her Balcony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Rs. 99.93 Lakh To Child Despite Nigam Blaming Father For 'Extending Balcony' Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Quash Rape & POCSO Conviction After Marriage Between Accused And Victim NGT Cannot Order Demolition of Temple On Ground of Encroachment of Park: Supreme Court Quashes Removal Order For Want of Jurisdiction Hostile Witnesses & Doubtful Recovery Can Collapse Prosecution: J&K High Court Sets High Threshold for Criminal Proof Compassion Cannot Override the Clock: Karnataka HC Denies Job to Guardian Aunt Despite 2021 Rule Change” Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Appeal Is Void: Kerala High Court Appearing in Exam Does Not Cure Attendance Deficiency: MP High Court Upholds 'Year Down' Against BBA Student With Sub-30% Attendance Patna High Court Directs Bihar To Submit Detailed Rehabilitation Plan For Recovered Mental Health Patients, Expand Half-Way Homes Across State Rajasthan High Court Upholds Refusal to Drop Bharat Band Stone-Pelting Case

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