Statutory Obligations of Public Authorities under RTI Act Flow With Office, Not Individual Incumbents

The Petitioner, Secretary of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), challenged the orders passed by the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) which imposed a penalty of ₹25,000/- and directed disciplinary proceedings against him

Respondent No. 2 filed an RTI application on 06.02.2023, followed by a first appeal on 09.03.2023

The Petitioner assumed charge as the First Appellate Authority on 08.05.2025

Despite three hearings before the KIC in 2025 (after the Petitioner took charge), there was no representation or compliance from the BDA

Consequently, the KIC passed the impugned order on 01.01.2026

The Petitioner contended he was not liable as the initial default occurred under his predecessors

he issued compliance instructions on 12.03.2026

1. Whether a public servant can be held liable for non-compliance with the Right to Information (RTI) Act for proceedings that originated during their predecessor's tenure but continued during their own

2. Whether the subsequent direction to furnish information, issued after the imposition of a penalty, serves as a valid ground to set aside the penalty and disciplinary directions

The office of the First Appellate Authority is a statutory office, not a personal one, and obligations travel with the office regardless of the individual incumbent

The Act establishes a framework for transparency and accountability where Public Information Officers and First Appellate Authorities are statutorily mandated to cooperate with the Commission

The efficacy of the Act depends on timely disposal of appeals and active participation in quasi-judicial proceedings

The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument that he was not responsible for "historical defaults" inherited from predecessors. It reasoned that upon assuming office on 08.05.2025, the Petitioner became statutorily responsible for all pending matters within his jurisdiction.

The Court noted that the Petitioner failed to represent the authority in three KIC hearings held during his tenure and did not dispose of the appeal even after seven months in office.

The Court characterized this as "continuing default" rather than a past lapse.

Regarding the Petitioner's communication dated 12.03.2026, the Court held that a post facto step taken only after coercive/adverse orders are passed cannot retrospectively erase months of inaction or render the Commission’s orders illegal.

The court clarified that while the Petitioner is liable, the competent authorities are not precluded from examining the role of his predecessors for the period prior to 08.05.2025.

I.A. No. 1 of 2026 was allowed