Section 17 of Right to Information Act:

Section 17(1)

Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner shall be removed from his office only by order of the Governor on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity after the Supreme Court, on a reference made to it by the Governor, has on inquiry, reported that the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, as the case may be, ought on such ground be removed.

Section 17(2)

The Governor may suspend from office, and if deem necessary prohibit also from attending the office during inquiry, the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner in respect of whom a reference has been made to the Supreme Court under sub-section (1) until the Governor has passed orders on receipt of the report of the Supreme Court on such reference.

Section 17(3)

Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Governor may by order remove from office the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner if a State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, as the case may be,—

(a) is adjudged an insolvent; or

(b) has been convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the Governor, involves moral turpitude; or

(c) engages during his term of office in any paid employment outside the duties of his office; or

(d) is, in the opinion of the Governor, unfit to continue in office by reason of infirmity of mind or body; or

(e) has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner.

Section 17(4)

If the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner in any way, concerned or interested in any contract or agreement made by or on behalf of the Government of the State or participates in any way in the profit thereof or in any benefit or emoluments arising therefrom otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company, he shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed to be guilty of misbehavior.

Explained:

Section 17 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, lays down the legal procedure for removing the State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners. The provision is important because it protects the independence of the State Information Commission and prevents its members from being removed arbitrarily.

Grounds for Removal Under Section 17

Under Section 17(1), a State Chief Information Commissioner or State Information Commissioner can be removed by an order of the Governor on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. Before removal on these grounds, the Supreme Court must conduct an inquiry following a reference made by the Governor and report that the officer ought to be removed.

Section 17(2) authorises the Governor to suspend the concerned Commissioner during the inquiry. The Governor may also prohibit the Commissioner from attending office until a final order is passed after receiving the Supreme Court’s report.

Section 17(3) provides additional grounds for removal. These include being declared insolvent, conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude, engaging in paid employment outside official duties, physical or mental infirmity that makes the Commissioner unfit to continue, and acquiring a financial or other interest likely to prejudice official functions.

Section 17(4) further provides that involvement in certain government contracts or agreements, or participation in their profits or benefits beyond the stated exception, is deemed to constitute misbehaviour.

Important Judgments on Section 17

1. Y.N. Nagaraja v. State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court, 2008)

The Court examined the statutory framework governing State Information Commissioners. It explained that Section 17 establishes a specific procedure for removal on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, reinforcing the independent character of these offices.

2. K. Natarajan v. State of Kerala (Kerala High Court, 2013)

The judgment considered Section 17 in the context of the statutory safeguards applicable to State Information Commissioners. It highlighted the importance of the prescribed removal procedure in protecting the independence of the Commission.

Conclusion

Section 17 of the RTI Act, 2005, establishes safeguards for the removal of State Information Commissioners while allowing removal in specified circumstances. Its purpose is to maintain accountability, institutional independence and public confidence in the implementation of the Right to Information Act.