Karnataka High Court Held That A Public Servant Assuming Charge Of A Statutory Office Cannot Evade Responsibility For Pending Proceedings By Attributing Defaults To Their Predecessor

The High Court of Karnataka, through its judgment dated 15.06.2026 in Sri. Shivakumar C.L. v. State Information Commissioner & Anr.¹, dismissed a writ petition challenging the Karnataka Information Commission’s orders imposing penalty under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”).

In the present case, Sri. Shivakumar C.L., was transferred and posted as Secretary of the Bangalore Development Authority on 07.05.2025 and assumed charge on 08.05.2025. The RTI Application was filed on 06.02.2023 and the first appeal had been preferred on 09.03.2023 which was much prior to the assumption of office by Sri. Shivakumar C.L. Therefore, it was contended by Sri. Shivakumar C.L. that all actions, omissions and decisions relating to the RTI proceedings during the said period were attributable exclusively to the predecessors.

The Court observed that a public servant assuming charge of a statutory office cannot ignore pending proceedings merely because they originated during the tenure of his predecessor. Since Sri. Shivakumar C.L. failed to attend the proceedings before the Karnataka Information Commission or ensure compliance even after assuming charge, the continued default was attributable to his own inaction. In addition to this the court also observed that proceedings under the RTI Act are not mere administrative communications that may be ignored at the discretion of public authorities. The efficacy of the statutory framework established under the RTI Act depends substantially upon the cooperation of Public Information Officers and First Appellate Authorities with the Commission. Non-participation in proceedings before the Commission strikes at the very foundation of the mechanism created by Parliament for ensuring transparency and accountability in public administration. Accordingly, the Court upheld the Karnataka Information Commission’s orders and dismissed the writ petition.

Footnote

^{1 WP No. 15040 of 2026}

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.