Attempt to hoodwink court: Karnataka HC dismisses BDA Secretary's plea against penalty imposed by RTI authority

The Karnataka High Court on Monday refused to interfere with disciplinary action recommended by the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) against Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) Secretary Shivakumar CL [Shivakumar CL v. State Information Commissioner and another].

Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that the officer's conduct deserved to be deprecated and that the Court would not permit any attempt to "hoodwink" it.

The judge dismissed Shivakumar's petition challenging the KIC's orders which had imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 on him and recommended disciplinary proceedings against him for not complying with directions issued under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The Court noted that the BDA Secretary had neither complied with the KIC's directions, nor had he appeared before the Commission despite repeated opportunities.

"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."

The dispute is tied to an RTI application filed by one Suresh Chandra Babu. After the information was not furnished within the prescribed period, Babu filed a first appeal before the first appellate authority under the RTI Act - the BDA Secretary in this case - on March 9, 2023. Though certain steps were initiated by the earlier BDA Secretary on May 5, 2023, no final order was passed on the appeal.

Shivakumar CL assumed charge on May 8, 2025. However, the Court noted that even after he assumed office, no orders were passed on the pending appeal. The matter then reached the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC).

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.

Consequently, on January 1, 2026, the KIC imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 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 M V 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.

The Court, however, rejected these submissions.

"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 Govindaraj 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 infirmity in the KIC's orders, the High Court proceeded to dismiss the BDA secretary's plea.

The Court clarified that the concerned authorities would also be at liberty to initiate action against the petitioner's predecessor, who had failed to take any action on the first appeal from March 9, 2023, until the petitioner assumed charge in May 2025.