Back
Successor Officials Liable for RTI Delays Despite Predecessor Tenure: Karnataka High Court
In a significant ruling reinforcing the accountability of public servants, the has rejected a plea by a (BDA) official attempting to avoid penalties under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that are attached to an office, not an individual, and therefore, successor officers cannot evade responsibility for ongoing delays simply because they were triggered by their predecessors.
The Case: A Pattern of Inaction The dispute originated from an RTI application filed by Sri A. Suresh Chandra Babu on . Following a failure by the BDA to provide the requested information, a first appeal was filed. In the interim, the petitioner, Sri Shivakumar C.L., assumed the role of Secretary of the BDA on .
By the time the (KIC) initiated proceedings in mid-2025, the application had remained stagnant for years. Despite multiple opportunities for the BDA to represent its case to the KIC, the authority failed to appear or provide the information. Consequently, the KIC imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 on , and initiated .
The Arguments: Individual Liability vs. Statutory Duty The petitioner argued that as he only assumed charge in mid-2025, he could not be held personally liable for a failure initiated in early 2023. He maintained that the omissions were
"exclusively attributable to his predecessors"
and that he had shown a willingness to comply by instructing his subordinates to provide the information after the penalty was imposed.
The Court, however, dismissed this, pointing to a " ." Justice Govindaraj noted that the office of the is a . When a new officer assumes charge, the obligations of that office necessarily travel with them.
Key Observations The judgment delivered a stern message regarding the conduct of public officials:
-
On the Nature of Statutory Office:
"The office of the
under the
is not a personal office but a statutory office. The obligations attached thereto travel with the office and not with the individual incumbent."
-
On
:
"Acceptance of such a contention would result in
and would enable
to be indefinitely postponed by the simple expedient of transfer of officers."
-
On Failure of Diligence:
"The conduct of the petitioner demonstrates not merely a delay in compliance but a complete absence of diligence in attending to the matter."
-
On
:
"A step taken after the imposition of penalty cannot retrospectively erase months of inaction or cure an established default."
Decision and Implications The High Court upheld the KIC’s order, affirming that the penalty and the were fully justified. The Court clarified that while the law allows for investigations into the misconduct of predecessors, the sitting officer holds the current responsibility to act on pending statutory matters.
This judgment serves as a pivotal precedent, signaling to public authorities that a change in leadership is no defense against compliance failures under the . It reinforces the principle that the wheels of transparency must continue to turn, regardless of which official is sitting in the chair.
