Allowed¶76

Registrar (Judicial) v. Karnataka Information Commission

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2026WP/7574/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RTI Act 2005 exemptions; Section 8(1)(e) fiduciary relationship exemption; Section 8(1)(j) personal information and privacy exemption; adverse/advisory remarks and confidential remarks of Judicial Officers of the High Court of Karnataka; Karnataka Information Commission second appeal KIC No.14441/APL/2018; First Appellate Authority order dated 23.08.2018 under Section 19(3); CBSE and another Vs. Aditya Bhandopadyay (2011) 8 SCC 497; writ under Articles 226 and 227; quashing of KIC order dated 28.02.2020.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the State Information Commissioner (Karnataka Information Commission) is quashed. ¶76

Registrar (Judicial) Vs Karnataka Information… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; the order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the State Information Commissioner (Karnataka Information Commission) is quashed.

¶76

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 28.02.2020 of the Karnataka Information Commission directing furnishing of the information sought at item No.4 (communication of remarks made to Judicial Officers) is sustainable in law. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

The impugned order, though directing furnishing of the item No.4 information, does not advert to the requirement of law and is contrary to Sections 8(1)(e)/8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as extracted and to the law laid down by the Apex Court as noted in paragraph 14 of the First Appellate Authority's order; hence it is quashed.

¶72

Ratio / Principle

The information sought by respondent No.2, being the communication of remarks and acceptance of the remark of a Judicial Officer, is confidential in nature and falls within the exempted category under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

¶71

Key takeaways

Respondent No.2 cannot claim the said information as a matter of right.ratio¶72

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the Registrar (Judicial)/Appellate Authority under RTI Act 2005 and the State Public Information Officer, High Court of Karnataka, against the order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the Karnataka Information Commission in second appeal KIC No.14441/APL/2018 (Annexure-H), which upheld the PIO response on item Nos.2 and 3 of an application dated 10.05.2018 but directed issuance of the information sought at item No.4, namely communication of remarks (adverse/advisory remarks and no adverse remarks) made to Judicial Officers from July 2009 to July 2017. Held: such information concerns the communication of remarks and acceptance of the remark of a Judicial Officer, is confidential/private, and falls within the exempted categories under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act; respondent No.2 cannot claim it as a matter of right; the impugned order, being cryptic and issued without advertence to these exemptions or reasons, is contrary to the said provisions and to the law laid down by the Apex Court as noted in paragraph 14 of the First Appellate Authority's order (which had relied on CBSE and another Vs. Aditya Bhandopadyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497). Petition allowed; order dated 28.02.2020 quashed. (M.G.S. Kamal, J.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:2687 WP No. 7574 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 7574 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER RTI ACT 2005 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶10

THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR (ESTABLISHMENT) (NOW JOINT REGISTRAR) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. RAJENDRA M.S.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION GROUND FLOOR, 'MAHAITHI SOUDHA' DEVARAJ ARASU ROAD OPP TO VIDHANA SOUDHA WEST GATE-02 BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER.

¶16

MOHAN CHANDRA P

¶17

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O JANARDHANA NAYAK P

¶18

R/AT PANJIGAR HOUSE

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:2687 WP No. 7574 of 2020

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

KALANJA POST, SULIA TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 212.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR K.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DATED 31.05.2021

¶25

R2- SRI. MOHAN CHANDRA P., PARTY-IN-PERSON (ABSENT))

¶26

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.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

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.

¶31

By application dated 10.05.2018, respondent No.2 herein has sought for following information:

¶32

1. 2010 ಮತು� 2011 �ೇ �ಾ�ನ�� ೊಡಗು ��ೆ � ೆ ಕ�ಾ�ಟಕ ಉZÀÑ �ಾ��ಾಲಯವ� �ಾರನು� ಆಡ!"ಾತ#ಕ �ಾ�ಯಮೂ$�ಗಳ�ಾ�& �ೇ'(ರುತ�)ೆ ಎಂಬಬ�ೆ- )ಾಖ�ೆಗಳಸ0ತ1ಾ0$ .

¶33

2. 2011 �ೇ �ಾ�ನ �ೊಡಗು ��ೆ�ಯ ಎ�ಾ� �ಾ��ಾ2ೕಶರುಗಳ �ೌಪ� ವರ6ಯನು� ಆ&ನಆಡ!"ಾತ#ಕ�ಾ�ಯಮೂ$�ಯವರು ಬ7ೆ6)ಾ87ೆ9ೕ ಎಂಬ ಬ�ೆ1ಾ0$ .

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:2687 WP No. 7574 of 2020

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

ಒಂದು ?ೇ@ೆ ಬ7ೆಯ6ದ8�� ಾವ �ಾವ �ಾ��ಾ2ೕಶರ �ೌಪ� ವರ6 / A1ಾPïìð£ÀÄß ಬ7ೆ6ಲ� ಮತು� �ಾವ �ಾರಣ�ೆC �ೌಪ� ವರ6ಯನು� ಬ7ೆ6ಲ� ಎಂಬಬ�ೆ- 1ಾ0$ .

¶38

ಜು�ೈ 2009 Aಂದ G�ೆಂಬH 2017 ರ ತನಕ �ೌರ?ಾIJತ ಉಚL �ಾ��ಾಲಯದ ಆ�ಾಯ ��ೆ�ಯ ಆಡ!"ಾತ#ಕ �ಾ�ಯಮೂ$�ಗಳM ಆ�ಾಯ ��ೆ�ಯ �ಾ��ಾಂಗ ಅ2�ಾAಗಳ ಬ�ೆ- �ೌಪ� ವರ6ಯ�� ಅವರವರ remarks (adverse/advisory remarks and no adverse remarks) ನು� ಬ7ೆದು ಸ6O A1ಾPïìð£ÀÄß ಒPQ�ೊಳMRವ ಮತು� A1ಾPïìð£ÀÄß ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟT �ಾ��ಾಂಗ ಅ2�ಾAಗ!�ೆ communicate ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉÃ JA§ §UÉÎ �ಾ��ಾಂಗ ಅ2�ಾAಗಳ Uೆಸರು ಮತು� ಹು)ೆ8ಯನು� ಒಳ�ೊಂಡ Wವರ?ಾದ ಪXTಯನು� ಮುಂ6ನ ಆ)ೇಶ�ೆC �ೌರ?ಾIJತಮುಖ� �ಾ�ಯಮೂ$�ಯವA�ೆ ಸ��(ದು8 , ಅದರದೃZೕಕೃತನಕಲು .

¶39

5. ಜನವA 2016 Aಂದ [ೕ 2016 ರ ತನಕದ �ೌಪ� ವರ6ಯ�� ಎರಡು ಇಂ&�ೕ]$ೕಪ��ಗಳM ಕG[ಇ"ೆ�ಂದು ಮತು� ಈಬ�ೆ- ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟT �ಾ��ಾಲಯ�ೆC 1ಾ0$ಯನು� IೕGರುವ�)ಾ& 1ಾ0$ಯನು� IೕGದು8 ಮತು� ಇ��ಯ ತನಕ ಕ_ೇAಯ�� (JೕಕA(ರುವ�6ಲ�?ೆಂದು ಎ` Pಐಒ .143/2018 ರಂ"ೆ 1ಾ0$ಯನು� IೕGದು8ಈಬ�ೆ- ಪತO ವ�ವUಾರ1ಾGದಪತOದದೃZೕಕೃತ)ಾಖ�ೆ .

¶40

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

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:2687 WP No. 7574 of 2020

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

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.

¶45

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.

¶46

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.

¶47

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 does not dispute the factual and legal aspect of the matter.

¶48

Respondent No.2 is absent.

¶49

The paragraph No.3 of the interim order reads as follows:

¶50

"3. ಆcೕಗದ 6�ಾಂಕ :06.12.2019 ರ 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

¶51

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:2687 WP No. 7574 of 2020

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

ಮತು� 3 �ೇ ಅಂಶ�ೆC ಸ��(ರುವWವರdೆಗಳನು� ಆcೕಗವ� ಅಂ&ೕಕA(ದು8 , 4 �ೇ ಅಂಶ�ೆC ಕುAತಂ"ೆ ಸ��ಸ�ಾದ Wವರdೆ Uಾಗೂ ಅದ�ೆC ಸಂಬಂ2()ೆ ಎನ��ಾದ ಮ)ಾO` ಉಚL �ಾ��ಾಲಯದ ಆ)ೇಶವ� ಪOಸು�ತ ಪOಕರಣ�ೆC ಅನJeಸುವ�6ಲ�?ೆಂದು ಆcೕಗವ� ಅfgಾOಯ ಪXTದು8 , ಸದA 4 �ೇ ಅಂಶ�ೆC ಕುAತಂ"ೆ ಇ)ೇ ªÉÄÃ®ä£ÀW)ಾರರ hೇ7ೊಂದು 1ಾ0$ �ೋA�ೆ ಅ��ಯ�� ಸದA ಪO$?ಾ6ಗಳM 1ಾ0$ ಒದ&(ರುವ�ದನು� ಪAಗi( , ಪOಸು�ತಪOಕರಣದ��ೋAರುವ 4 �ೇ ಅಂಶ�ೆC ಸಂಬಂ2(ದ)ಾಖ�ೆಗಳನು� ದೃZೕಕA( 30 6ನಗ@ೆjಳ�ಾ& ಉkತ?ಾ& �ೋಂ)ಾeತ ಅಂ_ೆ (Jೕಕೃ$ ಮುlಾಂತರ ªÉÄÃ®ä£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.

¶55

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�)ೆಂದುಎಚLA�ೆ IೕG)ೆ ".

¶56

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:

¶57

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:2687 WP No. 7574 of 2020

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

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:

¶71

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.

¶72

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.

¶73

¶74

NC: 2026:KHC:2687 WP No. 7574 of 2020

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76