3 min readBengaluruJun 16, 2026 04:03 PM IST
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday disposed of a law student’s petition seeking directions for the Karnataka State Law University and the state government to allow him to appear online for the hearing of an appeal filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj refused the relief to the petitioner, Pranava K N, and asked, “Are you willing to provide Rs 1,000 crore and provide the facility… Who is going to give them (authorities) Rs 1,000 crore to enable this facility in each of the departments?”
Pranava, who argued in person, relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Swapnil Tripathi v Supreme Court of India (2017) and said that online hearings are a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The judge then said the principle applies only if the authorities have the facilities.
The high court said in its order, “Though the Apex court has indicated that state should endeavor to provide online hearing, there is no mandate as such and the same is a policy decision by the state government.”
The court also noted the additional government advocate’s submission that allowing online hearings would require huge investments and expenses.
The order added, “Providing online hearing being a policy decision of the University and State of Karnataka, the above relief cannot be granted, the petition stands disposed.”
The court said that in the petitioner’s case, appeals before the first appellate authority need to be filed at the department or university level.
Story continues below this ad
Pranava approached the court to quash a November 25, 2025, communication from the first appellate authority under the RTI Act that denied him permission for online appearance and directed him to appear physically to argue his appeal.
Further, he sought a direction for the government to ensure that all first appellate authorities under the RTI Act provide an online or hybrid hearing option for RTI first appeals.
As per section 19 of the RTI Act, anyone who does not receive a decision on his application or is aggrieved by a decision of the central or state public information officer (PIO) may, within 30 days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision, appeal to the PIO in each public authority.
