The Kerala High Court recently dealt with a Public Interest Litigation filed by a retired government servant who alleged large-scale corruption, irregularities, and lack of transparency in the functioning of the State Lotteries Department. The petitioner claimed that the department was not disclosing vital financial and operational details despite being bound to maintain accountability under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
In his petition, the litigant explained that he had filed a detailed RTI request seeking information from the department for the financial year 2023-24. The questions raised included the total income earned by the Lotteries Department, the total number of draws conducted in the period, the quantum of money retained by the State when first prizes remained unclaimed, and the details of first prize winners, including names and addresses. The petitioner argued that transparency on these points was crucial since the lottery business generated massive revenue and affected thousands of people who purchased tickets in good faith.
In response, the Public Information Officer of the department disclosed certain figures. According to the reply, the department’s revenue for 2023-24 was ₹12,530.41 crores, and 361 lottery draws had been conducted during that period. However, the officer refused to share details about the unclaimed first prizes or the identities and addresses of the winners, citing legal restrictions. Dissatisfied with the partial disclosure, the petitioner pursued the matter by filing a statutory appeal.
The issue reached the State Information Commission at the second appeal stage. The Commission partly allowed the petitioner’s claims, directing the Public Information Officer to provide details about unclaimed prize money for January 2024 within ten days. However, the Commission did not grant the request for full disclosure of winners’ details or for all other information originally sought. Even this partial relief had not been implemented at the time the matter reached the High Court.
When the case was presented before a division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji, the Court examined the scope of the petition. The bench asked the petitioner whether he was satisfied with the limited relief granted by the Information Commission or whether he wished to challenge it further. The petitioner responded that he remained aggrieved by the Commission’s order since it did not address his concerns in full and that he intended to contest the partial rejection of his request.
The High Court held that since the RTI Act provided a clear statutory mechanism for obtaining information and appealing against adverse orders, the petitioner should pursue his grievance within that framework. The Court observed that filing a public interest litigation was not the correct legal route when statutory remedies were available and had not been fully exhausted. The bench accordingly disposed of the PIL, directing the petitioner to file a proper writ petition challenging the Information Commission’s order if he remained dissatisfied after exhausting remedies under the RTI Act.
Thus, the Court clarified that allegations of corruption in the State Lotteries Department must first be tested through the remedies provided by the RTI law, before invoking broader jurisdiction under PIL.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.