2026 Supreme(Mad) 1088

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
The Chairman, Teacher Recruitment Board, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
The State Information Commissioner – Respondent
W.P. No. 11820 of 2021, W.M.P. No. 12562 of 2021
Decided On : 02-06-2026

An appellate authority under the Act lacks jurisdiction to override existing officer designations or impose disciplinary service penalties for academic errors without proven mala fide intent and full adherence to natural justice and procedural fairness requirements, as its mandate is strictly limited to ensuring statutory compliance with disclosure.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 5, 19, 20 and 25 - Appointment of designated officers and powers of appellate authority - Authority of commission to direct disciplinary action or record adverse entries in service registers - Requirement of mala fide or persistent failure to provide information under Section 20 - Applicability of natural justice - Scope of administrative oversight under the Act. (Paras 4, 5, 17, 19, 22, 23, 27, 28)

(B) Appeals - Scope and ambit - Appellate authority functions only to secure compliance with information disclosure mandates and cannot act as an expert or disciplinary body in academic matters - Directions for punitive service actions or administrative penalties require proven mala fide, evidence of willful dereliction of duty, and adherence to hearing procedures before implementation. (Paras 6, 7, 9, 26)

Facts of the case:
Multiple applications were submitted seeking information regarding evaluation keys for an entrance examination. The appellate commission, while directing the disclosure of the requested information, issued additional orders appointing the head of the recruiting body as the primary information officer, ordering adverse entries in the service registers of academic staff, and initiating disciplinary proceedings to compulsorily retire said individuals due to allegedly erroneous question paper framing. The recruitment body challenged the order as being beyond the jurisdiction and authority of the commission.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the recruiting body had already designated required officers for information requests, rendering the commission's appointment of a new officer arbitrary and unsustainable. Furthermore, the court held that adverse service remarks and disciplinary recommendations require substantive proof of mala fide or persistent failure to furnish information under the relevant statutory provisions, none of which were established. The court also noted the failure to afford the affected individuals a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Issues: 1. Whether the appellate authority possesses the jurisdiction to designate a new public information officer when the authority has already designated such officials. 2. Whether the commission may order adverse service entries and disciplinary actions for academic errors without a finding of mala fide and without adhering to protocols for natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: Powers under the Act are limited to securing compliance with disclosure obligations; the commission cannot usurp the role of an administrative oversight or disciplinary tribunal. Appointment of an information officer is permissible only where the public authority has failed to comply with statutory designation requirements. Disciplinary recommendations are contingent upon persistent non-compliance or proven bad faith, supported by natural justice requirements. Erroneous academic work in the absence of mala fide intent does not justify penal service consequences.

Result: Writ petition allowed; order set aside.