- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15903 WP No. 26653 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 26653 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: INTAK RAJU N PRESIDENT OF AGE 60 YEARS, MYSORE DISTRICT, RIGHT TO INFORMATION, AND HUMAN RIGHTS, PROTECTION ASSOCIATES ®, NO.212, H.D.R COMPLEX, BAJAR ROAD, HUNSUR - 571 105, MYSORE DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HALESHA R. GAVIMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION NO.14/3, FIRST FLOOR, SRI ARIVIND BHAVAN (MYTHIC SOCIETY), NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 01. REPT. BY STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER. 2. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND DEPUTY SECRETARY, APPOINTMENT DIVISION, KARNATAKA SEVA AYOGA, DEVARAJ URSU ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. 3. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, AND ASSISTANT SECRETARY, APPOINTMENT DIVISION, Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15903 WP No. 26653 of 2025 KARNATAKA SEVA AYOGA, DEVARAJ URSU ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I. ISSUE A WRIT, DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENTS NO.PSC/PA.SHA(2)2385/2024-25 AND NO.RTI/GOPYA(2)/ 668A/2024-25/PSC DATED 19/12/2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE- B1 AND B2 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed seeking following reliefs: i. Issue a Writ, Directions or Orders to Quash the Impugned endorsements No.PSC/Pa.Sha(2) 2385/2024-25 and No.RTI/Gopya(2)/ 668A/2024-25/PSC dated 19/12/2024 issued by the 3rd Respondent, produced at ANNEXURE-B1 and B2. ii. further pleased to quash the impugned order No. Gopya(2):702/2024-25PSC, Bengaluru on 30/01/2025 passed by the 2nd Respondent by confirming the impugned order passed by the 3rd Respondent, produced at ANNEXURE-D. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15903 WP No. 26653 of 2025 iii. further pleased to quash the impugned order passed on 09/06/2025 in Case No.KIA/4257/APL/2025, by 1st Respondent, by confirming the impugned orders passed by the Respondent No.3 and 2, produced at ANNEXURE-G. iv. further pleased to grant such other relief as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioner has invoked the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking disclosure of the evaluated answer script of a third-party candidate who had appeared in an examination conducted by the Excise Department. The said request came to be rejected by the Public Information Officer, which rejection was affirmed by the First Appellate Authority and subsequently by the Karnataka Information Commission. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings recorded by all the authorities under the Act, the present writ petition is filed. 3. This Court has carefully examined the scope and object of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Act is a progressive legislation intended to promote - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15903 WP No. 26653 of 2025 transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and to ensure that citizens are informed about the affairs of governance. However, the right conferred under the Act is not absolute or unbridled. It is circumscribed by statutory limitations, particularly in matters involving personal information, privacy, and third- party rights. The legislative intent is not to permit indiscriminate disclosure of information that has no nexus to public interest, but rather to strike a balance between transparency and protection of individual privacy. 4. In the present case, the information sought pertains to the evaluated answer script of a candidate who had appeared for a public examination. Such material, though held by a public authority, partakes the character of personal information of the candidate concerned. Disclosure of such information, at the instance of a stranger who has no participation in the selection process, would amount to unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that candidate, unless justified by demonstrable larger - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15903 WP No. 26653 of 2025 public interest, which is conspicuously absent in the present case. 5. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner himself had not appeared in the examination in question. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any semblance of personal or legal grievance arising out of the evaluation process. The concept of locus standi, though liberalized in certain categories of public law remedies, cannot be stretched to such an extent so as to enable a person, having no direct or indirect connection with the subject examination, to seek disclosure of confidential academic records of a third party. 6. The mere assertion that the petitioner is a “Right to Information activist” does not clothe him with an enforceable legal right to seek any and every information, irrespective of its nature or consequence. The right under the Act is available to citizens, but its exercise must be bona fide and within the framework of the statutory - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15903 WP No. 26653 of 2025 scheme. Entertaining such requests, devoid of locus and public interest, would open floodgates for misuse of the Act and defeat the very purpose for which it was enacted. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the authorities under the Act have rightly rejected the petitioner’s application, holding that he is neither an aggrieved person nor entitled to seek the information in question. The concurrent findings recorded by the authorities do not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No grounds are made out. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2