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

The Karnataka High Court on Monday (February 24) deferred passing its order on an interim prayer seeking a stay on the operation of a January 30 State government notification appointing State Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners, till March 5. 

Justice R Devdas while pronouncing the order said, "Consideration of prayer for grant of interim relief is put off till matter is heard by the Apex court in the case of ANJALI BHARADWAJ & Others VS. UoI scheduled on March 4. States where appointments are made are told to file compliance affidavits".

Advocate Ashok Patil appearing for the petitioner said that the Supreme Court in the case of Anjali Bharadwaj and others v UOI and Others had directed the state government to form a search committee before appointment to the posts. The high court thus deferred passing the order after considering that the Supreme Court in Anjali Bharadwaj had directed the State government, where appointments have been made, to file compliance reports which was now listed on March 4. 

The high court thereafter said, "While awaiting further orders or directions at the hands of the Apex Court, relist the matter March 5, 2025". 

The high court had reserved its order last week on the petition filed by K Mallikarjuna Raju. The plea challenged a notification dated January 30, by which 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 had earlier 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 had said, “It can't be said that there is no specific direction to the state government in the order of SC.” He had 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 had 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 had 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 had 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.

Senior Advocate Professor Ravivarma Kumar appearing for the Chief Information Commission had 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 had 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. 

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

Case No: WP 3203/2025.