Introduction:
The case titled Babu K.M. v. State of Kerala and Ors., WP(PIL) No. 121/2025, citation 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 589 came up before the Kerala High Court, where a public interest litigation (PIL) was filed by Babu K.M., a retired government official and mandalam president (Vytilla) of the Indian National Congress. The petitioner alleged large-scale corruption, opacity, and systemic flaws in the functioning of the Kerala State Lotteries Department. His grievance stemmed from the refusal of the Public Information Officer (PIO) and later the State Information Commission to furnish complete information sought through the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, particularly concerning unclaimed prize money, details of lottery winners, and audit records. The petitioner sought a judicial probe into the matter, including a direction to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) to audit the Lotteries Department annually, an impartial investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and a technical software audit by a premier institute like IIT or NIT. The Kerala High Court, while hearing the matter, noted that the petitioner was essentially aggrieved by the partial rejection of his RTI application, and therefore, he should first adopt the proper channel of appeal before challenging the order by filing a simpliciter writ petition. The Court thus disposed of the petition, allowing liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedies before the RTI appellate authority and thereafter, if necessary, return with a properly constituted PIL.
Arguments of the Petitioner:
The petitioner, represented by Advocates Shinto Mathew Abraham, Anita Elizebeth Babu, Arun Thomas, Veena Raveendran, Karthika Maria, Anil Sebastian Pulickel, Mathew Nevin Thomas, Kurian Antony Mathew, Leah Rachel Ninan, Karthik Rajagopal, Aparnna S., Arun Joseph Mathew, Noel Ninan Ninan, and Adeen Nizar, argued that the Kerala State Lotteries Department lacked transparency in handling public funds, despite dealing with thousands of crores of rupees annually. The petitioner had filed an RTI application in 2024 seeking detailed information for the financial year 2023–24, including the total income derived from lotteries, number of draws conducted, the amount accrued to the State from unclaimed prizes, and the names and addresses of all first prize winners along with ticket details. While the Department disclosed that it had earned ₹12,530.41 crores through 361 draws, other crucial details were withheld. The petitioner alleged that this refusal indicated corruption and mismanagement within the Department. The petitioner further contended that the withholding of winners’ details was unjustified as these were public documents, historically disclosed by the Department to ensure public confidence. He argued that hiding such details under Section 8(1)(e), (g), and (j) of the RTI Act was unsustainable, as lottery winners voluntarily participated in a government-regulated scheme and disclosure served the larger public interest.
Additionally, the petitioner pressed for systemic reforms. He sought a direction for annual auditing of the Lotteries Department by the CAG to ensure accountability in revenue handling. Further, he requested an impartial probe by the CBI into the Department’s affairs, arguing that only an independent agency could unravel possible large-scale corruption. He also sought a software audit by a reputed technical institute to assess whether the lottery software systems were tamper-proof and transparent, ensuring that draws were conducted fairly. The petitioner claimed that these measures were vital for maintaining public trust in the State lottery system and protecting the interests of lakhs of citizens who participate in it.
Arguments of the Respondents:
On the other hand, the respondents, including the State of Kerala and its Lotteries Department, defended their position by pointing out that the petitioner’s grievances essentially arose from the denial of certain RTI queries, which had already been addressed by the State Information Commission through an appeal order. The Commission had partly allowed the appeal by directing disclosure of information regarding unclaimed prize money for January 2024, which, according to the respondents, demonstrated that the grievance redressal system under the RTI Act was functioning. The respondents argued that if the petitioner remained aggrieved, his remedy lay in challenging the appellate authority’s order through proper legal recourse, not by filing a PIL directly before the High Court.
Furthermore, the respondents contended that disclosing personal details of lottery winners, such as names and addresses, would violate their privacy and expose them to risks, including harassment, threats, or fraudulent claims. Such information, they argued, fell squarely within the exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act, which protects information held in a fiduciary capacity or private information not serving any overriding public interest. The Department maintained that its revenue and draw details were already being disclosed to the public in compliance with transparency norms and that the petitioner’s demand for more intrusive information was neither justified nor legally sustainable.
Regarding the petitioner’s demand for CAG audits and CBI investigation, the respondents submitted that such extraordinary measures could not be ordered merely on the basis of speculative allegations without substantive evidence of corruption. The Lottery Department was functioning under statutory and financial control mechanisms, and routine audits by State authorities already ensured oversight. Ordering a CBI investigation or an external technical audit without prima facie evidence of wrongdoing would amount to unwarranted interference in the Department’s administrative functioning. Thus, they urged the Court to dismiss the petition.
Court’s Judgment:
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji observed that the crux of the petitioner’s grievance was the denial of complete information under the RTI Act. The Bench orally remarked that the petitioner needed to decide whether he was satisfied with the partial relief granted by the State Information Commission in his second appeal. If he was aggrieved, the proper legal course was to challenge that order by filing a writ petition under Article 226, rather than invoking the jurisdiction of the Court through a PIL alleging corruption. The Court made it clear that unless the petitioner exhausted the remedies under the RTI Act, the Court could not entertain the PIL in its present form.
The Bench observed that a PIL could not be used as a substitute for statutory remedies, particularly when the petitioner was essentially seeking information that was already within the RTI framework. At the same time, the Court acknowledged the petitioner’s concerns about transparency in the lottery system and noted that such issues could be examined once the petitioner obtained all the necessary information through the proper legal channel. The Court disposed of the PIL with liberty to the petitioner to adopt appropriate proceedings to challenge the order of the State Information Commission.
The Bench also orally advised the petitioner that if he was genuinely concerned about corruption and lack of transparency, he should first secure all relevant documents by following through the RTI process. Only after that would the Court be in a position to consider larger prayers such as CBI investigation, CAG audits, or technical software audits. In doing so, the Court implicitly balanced the need for transparency with the importance of procedural discipline in judicial review.
Thus, the Kerala High Court refrained from issuing sweeping directions on corruption allegations at this stage and instead emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies. The judgment highlights the Court’s cautious approach in handling PILs where grievances can be addressed within the existing statutory framework, while leaving open the possibility of future judicial scrutiny if credible evidence of corruption emerges.