Society expulsion does not curtail an individual’s right to seek information under the RTI Act.

The petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”) about action taken on recommendations or communications from the Governor of Karnataka and the then Chief Minister.

The application and its enclosures were forwarded between the concerned authorities, but the documents were not supplied.

The First Appellate Authority rejected the petitioner’s appeal on the ground that the information fell outside its administrative jurisdiction.

The Karnataka Information Commission dismissed the petitioner’s further appeal, reasoning that he had been expelled from the relevant society in 1995 and had not challenged that expulsion.

The petitioner sought to quash both orders and obtain the requested information.

Whether the petitioner’s expulsion from the society could, by itself, bar his right to seek information under the RTI Act.

Whether the authorities could respond to the information request without copies of the referenced recommendations or communications, and what directions were appropriate.

The Court applied the RTI Act, 2005, including the appellate mechanism under Section 19(3).

It held that a person’s expulsion from a society does not, merely on that account, curtail the person’s right to seek information under the Act.

The Court further observed that the relevant Public Information Officers would need copies of the documents identified in the application to trace the files and verify what action had been taken.

The Commission had rejected the appeal based on the petitioner’s former membership and unchallenged expulsion. The Court found that this was not a valid basis for denying access under the RTI Act.

However, because the request concerned action on particular recommendations or communications and the authorities lacked copies of those documents, the Court accepted the petitioner’s submission that he would provide them to assist the authorities in locating the relevant files.

It directed him to provide copies of the documents referred to in his application to the third and fourth respondents within three weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order. The respondents were then directed to respond to the application within 30 days of receiving those copies. The petition was disposed of with these directions.