Karnataka High Court Reserves Order On Interim Plea To Stay Notification Appointing State CIC, Information Commissioners

Justice R Devdas heard the parties and reserved its order on the petition filed by K Mallikarjuna Raju, it said “Heard reserved for order on interim prayer.”

By the impugned notification dated January 30, the state government appointed former IPS officer Ashit Mohan Prasad as the state chief information commissioner and Raman K, Dr Harish Kumar, Rudranna Harthikote, Narayan G Channal, Rajashekara S, Badruddin K and former IAS officer Dr Mamatha BR as state information commissioners.

Advocate Ashok Patil appearing for the petitioner argued that Supreme Court in the case of Anjali Bharadwaj and others vs. Union of India and Others (2019) have directed the state government to form a search committee before appointing to the posts.

He said “It can't be said that there is no specific direction to the state government in the order of SC.” He referred to various notification issues by the State of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Punjab and Tripura where search committees were constituted before appointing to the post of SCIC and SIC.

Urging the court to pass an interim order of stay of the notification he said “Let there be an interim order and let them file their response, persons appointed without following due process have taken oath and are functioning. Today the state is not able to substantiate their submission regarding the search committee, so there should be an interim order.”

He added “There should be an interim order, appointees cannot function, as they are appointed in violation of SC order. Everything here is done in an opaque manner.”

Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty countered the submission by saying that there is no direction in the order of SC making search committee mandatory.

He said “No specific direction is made in the order in regard to the State of Karnataka. The language used is appropriate to constitute a search committee. The petitioner applied for the post of State information commissioner at best he may say I am entitled for it. There is no question of staying the notification.” He stated before the court that no search committee was constituted before the appointments were made.

Shetty also submitted that the petition before the high court was not maintainable. He said “Supreme Court order has directed the state government to file affidavits. We have to file the affidavit to show what is the procedure adopted. We will file it and get approval from the SC. At this stage entertaining this petition when matter is subjudice before SC is not maintainable.”

He added “Assuming if there is any procedural flaw in the process it cannot vitiate the entire process. We will file our response in the SC and lordships may reject the petition or await the judgment of the SC.”

Senior Advocate Professor Ravivarma Kumar appearing for the Chief Information Commission argued that “He (Petitioner) is not an aggrieved person as he did not make an application for SCIC.He is not seeking a writ of quo-warranto against me. Thus the petition is required to be dismissed.”

Further he submitted that “There is no whisper in the petition that I (CIC) lack the qualification for being appointed.”

Contending that the petition was not maintainable as proceedings were pending before the Supreme Court he said “If the court still wants we will file our replies. By grant of interim order the petitioner will not become SCIC. It cannot be an interim relief but will be an interim injury to the state. It will be against public interest. The balance of convenience is in favor of rejecting the relief.”

Following which the court reserved its order.

Case Title: K Mallikarjuna Raju AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WP 3203/2025.