A single application made under Right to Information (RTI) Act to secure particulars such as assets and liabilities declared before the Lokayukta by all MLAs and MLCs will not be valid anymore, the High Court of Karnataka has made it clear.
One has to file one application each seeking details on legislators’ assets and liabilities statements. There are 225 MLAs and 75 MLCs in the State.
The High Court, in a recent verdict, made this clear while holding that information about “only one subject matter” can be sought through a single application in view of the Rule 14 of the RTI Rules.
Setting aside a direction given by the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) to the public information officer of the Lokayukta on furnishing details of assets and liabilities of MLAs and MLCs to an applicant, Justice A.N. Venugopala Gowda said that “in view of Rule 14, the public information officer of the Lokayukta was justified in instructing the applicant to file separate applications for each MLA and MLC.”
“The assets and liabilities statements of all the MLAs and MLCs of the State cannot be construed as relating to one subject matter. The State has 225 MLAs and 75 MLCs (elected and nominated). The information and the copies sought would disproportionately divert the resource of the public authority,” the court said.
However, Mr. Venugopala Gowda observed that Rule 14 was introduced by the State government based on a recommendation made by none other than the Karnataka Information Commission in 2007-08.
The Information Commission, the court noted, had, in its meeting in December 2007, discussed the problems faced by public information officers in furnishing information as multiple details, even up to 100 subjects, were being sought in a single application.
The court also observed that the Information Commission had suggested to the State government to introduce Rule 14 after noticing that the right to ask question in both the State Legislature as well as Parliament is also governed by various conditions, one of which is related to a “single matter”.
“Rule 14, which is clear and categorical, cannot be liberally construed. It should be construed strictly, as otherwise, the very purpose of its insertion would be frustrated,” the court said.
In this background, the High Court found that the “Information Commission has failed to keep the purpose with which Rule 14 was inserted with effect from March 18, 2008,” and the Information Commission’s order to the public information officer of the Lokayukta was “an apparent causal approach by the Information Commission”.
