The Kerala High Court has clarified the role and responsibilities of a Public Information Officer (PIO) under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
This decision came in response to a writ petition where the petitioner sought a court directive compelling the respondents to finalize and approve his appointment as the Principal of a college. The petitioner had previously been appointed to the post following a lawful selection procedure and subsequent approval by the affiliated University. However, the University later attempted to revoke this approval and initiate disciplinary proceedings against him.
The primary allegation against the petitioner, who had formerly served as the Public Information Officer of the college, was that he failed to verify the authenticity of a student’s degree certificates in response to certain RTI applications. It was argued that he should have exercised greater diligence in confirming the genuineness of the documents submitted by the student when the applications were received.
A Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh said, “When the petitioner was the Public Information Officer and when he received RTI applications, he has acted as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. There is no negligence or default on the part of the petitioner in processing and disposing of the RTI applications. The allegation is that when RTI applications were received, he should have investigated the issue raised by the RTI Applicant. As long as the petitioner is not the competent officer to deal with such complaint and as long as no specific complaint regarding any forged document is received, a Public Information Officer is not legally bound to start any investigation process. A Public Information Officer has no such power or obligation under Section 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.”
The Court emphasized that a PIO does not have the authority or duty under Section 7 of the RTI Act to conduct any form of investigation while processing or responding to RTI applications.
The Court noted that the petitioner had processed and disposed of the RTI requests in accordance with the provisions laid out under the Right to Information Act. There was no dereliction of duty or negligence in his actions.
Additionally, the Court remarked that a single allegation or instance of purported negligence does not provide sufficient grounds to cancel an appointment that was otherwise made following due process.
Consequently, the Court instructed the concerned authorities to confirm the petitioner’s provisional appointment as Principal, in line with a previous interim order it had issued.
Cause Title: Dr Muhammed Thaha v. The Director of Collegiate Education & Ors., [2025:KER:33517]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Nisha George, George Poonthottam (Sr.) and A.L. Navaneeth Krishnan
Respondents: Advocate Thomas Abraham
