Karnataka High Court
Registrar (Judicial) vs Karnataka Information Commission on 19 January, 2026
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:2687
WP No. 7574 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 7574 OF 2020 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL)
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND APPELLATE
AUTHORITY UNDER RTI ACT 2005
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR (ESTABLISHMENT)
(NOW JOINT REGISTRAR)
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJENDRA M.S.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SUMA B N
AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION
GROUND FLOOR,
'MAHAITHI SOUDHA'
DEVARAJ ARASU ROAD
OPP TO VIDHANA SOUDHA WEST GATE-02
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER.
2. MOHAN CHANDRA P
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O JANARDHANA NAYAK P
R/AT PANJIGAR HOUSE
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:2687
WP No. 7574 of 2020
HC-KAR
KALANJA POST, SULIA TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 212.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR K.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/O DATED 31.05.2021
R2- SRI. MOHAN CHANDRA P., PARTY-IN-PERSON (ABSENT))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2020 PASSED BY THE
KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION, BENGALURU, THE R-
1 HEREIN, IN THE APPEAL VIDE ANNEXURE-H.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the State Information Commissioner upon the appeal filed by the respondent No.2.
2. By application dated 10.05.2018, respondent No.2 herein has sought for following information:
1. 2010 ಮತು 2011 ೇ ಾ ನ ೊಡಗು ೆ ೆ ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಉZÀÑ ಾ ಾಲಯವ ಾರನು ಆಡ!"ಾತ#ಕ ಾ ಯಮೂ$ ಗಳ ಾ & ೇ'(ರುತ)ೆ ಎಂಬ ಬ ೆ- )ಾಖ ೆಗಳ ಸ0ತ 1ಾ0$.
2. 2011 ೇ ಾ ನ ೊಡಗು ೆಯ ಎ ಾ ಾ ಾ2ೕಶರುಗಳ ೌಪ ವರ6ಯನು ಆ&ನ ಆಡ!"ಾತ#ಕ ಾ ಯಮೂ$ ಯವರು ಬ7ೆ6)ಾ87ೆ9ೕ ಎಂಬ ಬ ೆ-
1ಾ0$.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:2687 WP No. 7574 of 2020 HC-KAR
3. ಒಂದು ?ೇ@ೆ ಬ7ೆಯ6ದ8 ಾವ ಾವ ಾ ಾ2ೕಶರ ೌಪ ವರ6/A1ಾPïìð£ÀÄß ಬ7ೆ6ಲ ಮತು ಾವ ಾರಣ ೆC ೌಪ ವರ6ಯನು ಬ7ೆ6ಲ ಎಂಬ ಬ ೆ- 1ಾ0$.
4. ಜು ೈ 2009 Aಂದ G ೆಂಬH 2017ರ ತನಕ ೌರ?ಾIJತ ಉಚL ಾ ಾಲಯದ ಆ ಾಯ ೆಯ ಆಡ!"ಾತ#ಕ ಾ ಯಮೂ$ ಗಳM ಆ ಾಯ ೆಯ ಾ ಾಂಗ ಅ2 ಾAಗಳ ಬ ೆ- ೌಪ ವರ6ಯ ಅವರವರ remarks (adverse/advisory remarks and no adverse remarks) ನು ಬ7ೆದು ಸ6O A1ಾPïìð£ÀÄß ಒPQ ೊಳMRವ ಮತು A1ಾPïìð£ÀÄß ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟT ಾ ಾಂಗ ಅ2 ಾAಗ! ೆ communicate ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉà JA§ §UÉÎ ಾ ಾಂಗ ಅ2 ಾAಗಳ Uೆಸರು ಮತು ಹು)ೆ8ಯನು ಒಳ ೊಂಡ Wವರ?ಾದ ಪXTಯನು ಮುಂ6ನ ಆ)ೇಶ ೆC ೌರ?ಾIJತ ಮುಖ ಾ ಯಮೂ$ ಯವA ೆ ಸ (ದು8, ಅದರ ದೃZೕಕೃತ ನಕಲು.
5. ಜನವA 2016Aಂದ [ೕ 2016ರ ತನಕದ ೌಪ ವರ6ಯ ಎರಡು ಇಂ&ೕ] $ೕಪ ಗಳM ಕG[ ಇ"ೆಂದು ಮತು ಈ ಬ ೆ- ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟT ಾ ಾಲಯ ೆC 1ಾ0$ಯನು IೕGರುವ )ಾ& 1ಾ0$ಯನು IೕGದು8 ಮತು ಇ ಯ ತನಕ ಕ_ೇAಯ (JೕಕA(ರುವ 6ಲ?ೆಂದು ಎ` Pಐಒ.143/2018 ರಂ"ೆ 1ಾ0$ಯನು IೕGದು8 ಈ ಬ ೆ- ಪತO ವ ವUಾರ 1ಾGದ ಪತOದ ದೃZೕಕೃತ )ಾಖ ೆ.
3. In response, the Public Information Officer had furnished the information as regard item No.1 and declined to issue any information with regard to item Nos.2, 3 and 4. As regards, item No.5, it was responded that the communication was oral and there was no written communication in that regard. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.2 had preferred an appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the First Appellate Authority. First Appellate Authority by its order dated 23.08.2018, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CBSE and another Vs. Aditya Bhandopadyay reported in (2011) 8 SCC 497, more particularly relying on paragraph No.63 of the judgment , proceeded to -4- NC: 2026:KHC:2687 WP No. 7574 of 2020 HC-KAR dismiss the appeal upholding the response issued by the Information Authority. Being aggrieved, respondent No.2 preferred second appeal before the Karnataka Information Commission in KIC No.14441/APL/2018.
4. By impugned order, the Commissioner has upheld the response of the Information Officer to the extent of item Nos.2 and 3 and has however directed for issuance of information as sought for at item No.4.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the said information is in the nature of confidential and private pertaining to remarks (adverse/advisory remarks) issued to particular officer and the same cannot be made available for public information. He submits that the same is covered under the provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act. That the respondent No.1-Authority without even adverting to the said aspect of the matter and without even assigning any reason whatsoever by its cryptic order directed furnishing of the information as sought for in item No.4.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 does not dispute the factual and legal aspect of the matter.
7. Respondent No.2 is absent.
8. The paragraph No.3 of the interim order reads as follows:
"3. ಆcೕಗದ 6 ಾಂಕ:06.12.2019ರ ಆ)ೇಶದ ಕಂG ೆ (5)ರ Iೕಡ ಾದ I)ೇ ಶನದನು ಾರ ಇಂ6ನ W_ಾರdೆ ಸಮಯದ UಾಜAದ8 ಪO$?ಾ6ಗಳ ಪO$I2ಗಳM, [ೕಲ#ನW)ಾರರು ೋAರುವ ಮೂರು(3) ಅಂಶಗ! ೆ ಸಂಬಂ2(ದ 1ಾ0$ ಒದ&ಸುW ೆeಂದ W ಾe$ ೋA IೕGರುವ 0ಂಬರಹ ಕುAತಂ"ೆ Wವರdೆ IೕGದು8, ಸದA Wವರdೆಯ 2 -5- NC: 2026:KHC:2687 WP No. 7574 of 2020 HC-KAR ಮತು 3 ೇ ಅಂಶ ೆC ಸ (ರುವ Wವರdೆಗಳನು ಆcೕಗವ ಅಂ&ೕಕA(ದು8, 4 ೇ ಅಂಶ ೆC ಕುAತಂ"ೆ ಸ ಸ ಾದ Wವರdೆ Uಾಗೂ ಅದ ೆC ಸಂಬಂ2()ೆ ಎನ ಾದ ಮ)ಾO` ಉಚL ಾ ಾಲಯದ ಆ)ೇಶವ ಪOಸುತ ಪOಕರಣ ೆC ಅನJeಸುವ 6ಲ?ೆಂದು ಆcೕಗವ ಅfgಾOಯ ಪXTದು8, ಸದA 4 ೇ ಅಂಶ ೆC ಕುAತಂ"ೆ ಇ)ೇ ªÉÄîä£ÀW)ಾರರ hೇ7ೊಂದು 1ಾ0$ ೋA ೆ ಅ ಯ ಸದA ಪO$?ಾ6ಗಳM 1ಾ0$ ಒದ&(ರುವ ದನು ಪAಗi(, ಪOಸುತ ಪOಕರಣದ ೋAರುವ 4 ೇ ಅಂಶ ೆC ಸಂಬಂ2(ದ )ಾಖ ೆಗಳನು ದೃZೕಕA( 30 6ನಗ@ೆj ಳ ಾ& ಉkತ?ಾ& ೋಂ)ಾeತ ಅಂ_ೆ (Jೕಕೃ$ ಮುlಾಂತರ ªÉÄîä£ÀW)ಾರA ೆ ಒದ&ಸhೇ ೆಂದು Uಾಗೂ ಸದA 1ಾ0$ Uಾಗೂ ೊಂ)ಾeತ ಅಂ_ೆ (Jೕಕೃ$ಯ ನಕಲು ಪ$cಂ6 ೆ ಮುಂ6ನ W_ಾರdೆ 6ನದಂದು ಖುದು8 UಾಜAದು8 ವರ6ಯನು ಸ ಸhೇ ೆಂದು ಪO$?ಾ6 ಾದ mOೕಮ$ n.W.7ೇಣುಕªÀÄä ಾವ ಜIಕ 1ಾ0$ ಅ2 ಾA Uಾಗೂ ಜಂX W ೇಖ ಾ2 ಾAಗಳM, ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಉಚL ಾ ಾಲಯ, hೆಂಗಳjರು ರವA ೆ 1ಾ0$ ಹಕುC ಅ2Iಯಮ 2005 PÀ®A(3)(J)&(r)gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¤zÉÃð¹zÉ.
ಸದA ಪOಕರಣ ೆC ಸಂಬಂ2(ದಂ"ೆ ಮುಂ6ನ W_ಾರdಾ 6ನದಂದು ಖುದು8 UಾಜAದು8 4 ೇ ಅಂಶ ೆC ಸಂಬಂ2(ದ 1ಾ0$ಯನು ಪoೆ6ರುವ ಅಥ?ಾ ಪoೆಯ)ೇ ಇರುವ ಬ ೆ- ತಮ# qತ Uೇ! ೆಯನು ಆcೕಗ ೆC ಸ ಸhೇ ೆಂದು ಆcೕಗವ [ೕಲ#ನW)ಾರA ೆ ಸೂk()ೆ.
ತPQದ ಸದA ಪOಕರಣವನು ಅಹ "ೆಯ ಆrಾರದ [ೕ ೆ $ೕ1ಾ Iಸ ಾಗುವ )ೆಂದು ಎಚLA ೆ IೕG)ೆ".
9. Though the respondent No.1-Authority has accepted the reasons assigned by the Information Officer with regard to item Nos.2 and 3, it has restricted its order only to item No.4. The reason assigned by the Information Officer for declining to provide information is that the same are the remarks with regard to the Judicial Officers, which are confidential in nature. Sections 8(1)e and 8(1)j of the RTI Act providing for exemption from disclosure of information reads as under:-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:2687 WP No. 7574 of 2020 HC-KAR
8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen.-
(a) xxxx
(b) xxxx
(c) xxxx
(d) xxxx
(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the Competent Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
(f) xxxx
(g) xxxx
(h) xxxx
(i) xxxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
10. Clearly information as sought for by respondent No.2 is with regard to the Communication of remarks and acceptance of the remark of a judicial officer which falls within the exempted category.
11. Respondent No.2 cannot as a matter of right, claim the same.
Impugned order though issues direction to the petitioner herein to furnish the information as sought for at item No.4, does not advert to the requirement of law as noted above, order therefore is thus contrary to the provisions extracted herein above and the law laid by Apex Court as noted in the paragraph 14 of First Appellate Authority's order. -7-
NC: 2026:KHC:2687 WP No. 7574 of 2020 HC-KAR
12. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
13. Order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the State Information Commissioner is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14