Karnataka HC Dismisses Plea Seeking Passport and Lookout Circular Details Under RTI Citing Privacy and Security Exemptions

The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a writ petition seeking disclosure of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, related to the passport and lookout circular (LOC) of an accused person in a cheque dishonour case.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj delivered the order on October 16, 2025, upholding the findings of the Public Information Officer, the First Appellate Authority, and the Karnataka State Information Commission that the information sought was exempt from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(g), 8(1)(h), and 24(4) of the RTI Act.

The petitioner had filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which was registered as C.C. No. 467 of 2022 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada. When the accused in the case absconded, a lookout circular was issued, leading to the accused’s detention and subsequent release at Mumbai International Airport. Seeking to trace the details of this process, the petitioner applied under the RTI Act to obtain a copy of the accused’s passport, the date on which the LOC was issued, a copy of the LOC itself, and records of the detention and release of the accused on December 1, 2023.

The Public Information Officer (PIO) in the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Dakshina Kannada, rejected the RTI application.

The PIO cited Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which exempts disclosure of information that would impede the process of investigation, apprehension, or prosecution of offenders. The PIO further relied on a state government notification issued under Section 24(4), which excludes “special branches” of district police offices from the applicability of the RTI Act, except in cases involving corruption or human rights violations.

The petitioner appealed to the First Appellate Authority, who upheld the PIO’s decision. A further appeal to the Karnataka State Information Commission was also dismissed. The Commission relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, holding that the information sought was “personal” in nature and therefore exempt under Section 8(1)(g) of the Act, which protects information whose disclosure would endanger the life or safety of any individual or reveal confidential sources used for law enforcement.

The Court observed that passport details are inherently private and their disclosure could pose a risk to the personal safety and security of the individual concerned. It was noted that, “The disclosure of information like a passport, being personal in nature, would cause immense harm and injury to a person. If those details are made available to any third party, including the petitioner who has filed proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act, it could cause a danger to the life or physical safety of the concerned person.”

The bench further observed that Section 24(4) empowers the State Government to exempt certain intelligence and security organisations from the purview of the RTI Act. Since a notification excluding the special branches of district police offices from the Act’s operation had been issued, the Court held that the exemption applied to the information sought by the petitioner. It was added that the proviso to Section 24(4) allows disclosure only in cases involving corruption or human rights violations, which did not arise in the present matter.

Finding no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the authorities below, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. However, it was clarified that the petitioner was not without remedy and could seek production of the required documents before the trial court in the pending cheque dishonour case. “In the event the petitioner is seeking such information for use in the prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, he may apply before the concerned court for summoning those documents, which the court may consider on its merits,” the Court stated.

The petition was accordingly dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief before the trial court.

Case Title: Prakash Chimanlal Sheth v. State of Karnataka & Others

Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj

Date of Judgment: October 16, 2025