The High Court of Karnataka, in a judgment dated October 16, 2025, has dismissed a writ petition challenging the denial of an RTI application, holding that passport details are “private to a person” and their disclosure to a third party could “cause a danger to the life or physical safety of the concerned person.”
The Justice Suraj Govindaraj upheld the orders of the Public Information Officer (PIO), the First Appellate Authority, and the State Information Commission, which had collectively refused to provide passport and Lookout Circular (LOC) details of an accused in a cheque bounce case.
The Court dismissed the petition (WP No. 17341 of 2025) filed by Prakash Chimanlal Sheth but granted him liberty to seek the documents through the concerned criminal court.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Prakash Chimanlal Sheth, had previously filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (C.C.No.467/2022) before the JMFC, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada.
According to the judgment, the accused in the said matter had absconded, which led to a Lookout Circular (LOC) being issued. Subsequently, the accused was detained at Mumbai International Airport on December 1, 2023, and was later released.
Following these events, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) on September 27, 2024. He sought:
- A copy of the passport of the accused.
- The date on which the LOC was issued against the accused.
- A copy of the LOC issued against him.
- All information and records available with the Superintendent of Police, Mangaluru office, regarding the accused’s detention and release on December 1, 2023.
Rejections by Information Authorities
The petitioner’s application was rejected at all three levels of the RTI framework.
- Public Information Officer (PIO): Respondent No. 4, the PIO, rejected the application on October 22, 2024 (Annexure C) on two grounds. First, that the information was exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which protects “information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.” Second, the PIO stated that the documents pertained to the Special Branch, and the RTI Act does not apply to Special Branches in District Police Offices as per a government notification issued under Section 24(4) of the Act.
- First Appellate Authority (FAA): Respondent No. 3, the FAA, upheld the PIO’s decision on December 4, 2024 (Annexure B), stating that the rejection was “proper and correct.”
- State Information Commission (SIC): Respondent No. 2, the SIC, rejected the petitioner’s second appeal on March 19, 2025 (Annexure A). The Commission, citing a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court (SLP No.27734/2012) and the law on privacy, held that the information sought was “personal information” and could not be granted under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka, seeking to quash all three orders (Annexures A, B, and C) and a writ of mandamus directing the PIO to furnish the information.
High Court’s Analysis and Decision
The High Court, presided over by Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj, examined the reasoning provided by the authorities for the rejection.
The Court noted the PIO’s reliance on Section 8(1)(h) (impeding investigation) and the exemption for security organizations under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
The judgment then focused on the SIC’s reliance on Section 8(1)(g) and the “law of privacy.” The Court reproduced Section 8(1)(g), which exempts: “information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identity the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;”
Mr. Justice Govindaraj held that passport details are inherently private and their disclosure falls within the exemption provided by Section 8(1)(g).
The Court observed: “The disclosure of the information like a passport, in my considered opinion, being personal in nature would cause immense harm and injury to a person.”
Elaborating on the link between privacy and physical safety, the judgment stated: “The details of a passport are private to a person and if those details of a passport are made available to any third party, including the petitioner who has filed Section 138 of NI Act proceedings, it could cause a danger to the life or physical safety of the concerned person.”
Concluding the matter, the Court found no error in the decisions of the authorities. The judgment held: “In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by respondent No.4, subsequently by respondent No.3 and then by respondent No.2.”
While dismissing the writ petition, the High Court provided an alternative remedy to the petitioner. The Court granted liberty, stating: “In the event the petitioner seeking for and the said information for use in the prosecution of the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act, the petitioner could always make an application in the said proceedings for the summoning of those documents, which the Court in its wisdom, could consider.”
The High Court explicitly clarified, “It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the application” (if filed before the criminal court).
