'Won't Allow Misuse Of RTI Act': Karnataka High Court Refuses To Stay Blacklisting Order Passed Against Man Who Filed 476 RTI Applications

While refusing to stay an order passed by the Karnataka State Information Commissioner, blacklisting a man from seeking information under the Right To Information (RTI) Act, the court said “We cannot allow misuse of the RTI Act.”

Justice Suraj Govindaraj while issuing notice to the respondents— state government and others, has directed the government advocate to place on record the nature of applications filed by the petitioner under the RTI Act and what kind of information he had sought.

The bench said, “On first blush, filing of 476 applications by the petitioner under RTI Act appears to be quite extraneous.”

The petitioner Devaprasad K had approached the court seeking to stay the operation of the order dated January 28, by which the Commissioner had blacklisted and barred him from seeking any information under the Act.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that over 400 applications have been filed seeking information on different aspects, not similar questions on same topics are asked.

"I have only exercised the right vested under RTI. There is no statutory bar as such. In a similar case one more person is banned and he has approached this court and the court has stayed the order,” he argued.

On grounds of parity the petitioner sought for stay of the order submitting that he has been totally barred from seeking any information. "At least in any matters in respect to him he should be allowed to seek information," the counsel submitted.

The bench however refused to accede to the request, stating, “You cannot be filing 400 applications even if you are a public spirited person. You should know what you have to do, you cannot misuse this.” It added “I will first decide what you have been doing, and if you have filed 400 applications, shows...”

Following which it posted the matter for further hearing on November 12.

Case Title: Devaprasad K AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WP 15782/2025