Bombay HC Shields Service Records: Personal Info Can't Be Forced Out Under RTI Without Public Interest Check

In a significant ruling on privacy versus transparency, the Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench has quashed a State Information Commission (SIC) order directing the disclosure of a police officer's service records under the Right to Information (RTI) Act . Justice Abasaheb D. Shinde emphasized that such records qualify as personal information exempt under Section 8(1)(j) , and authorities must ensure a third-party hearing per Section 11 before any release. The petitioner, Narsing Ganpatrao Ankushkar , a Deputy Superintendent of Police, succeeded in blocking Balaji Pandharinath Thorat 's RTI quest into his career details.

From RTI Rejection to High Court Battle

The saga began when Thorat, a resident with no direct connection to Ankushkar, filed an RTI application seeking the officer's full service record—initially appointed as a Police Sub-Inspector and later serving at the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in Latur. Thorat claimed it was to verify Ankushkar's reserved category tribe validity certificate for public employment.

The Public Information Officer and First Appellate Authority rejected the request, citing privacy exemptions. Undeterred, Thorat appealed to the SIC Aurangabad Bench , which on January 15, 2015 , overturned the denials in Appeal No. 2014/RMA/Appeal/CR/3593, ordering disclosure. Ankushkar challenged this via Writ Petition No. 4075 of 2015, arguing procedural lapses and privacy invasion. The High Court admitted and finalized the matter on April 8, 2026 .

Petitioner's Stand: Privacy Over Unrelated Probes

Ankushkar's counsel, Mr. Aditya G. Chavan , argued the records were purely personal under Section 8(1)(j) RTI Act , unrelated to Thorat—who shared neither professional ties nor the petitioner's caste. No " larger public interest " was established to override exemptions, and as a third party, Ankushkar deserved notice and hearing under Section 11 . The SIC's disregard for these mandatory steps made the order unlawful.

Respondent's Push: Public Employment Warrants Scrutiny

Thorat's advocate, Mr. Suryawanshi G.G. , countered that verifying the tribe certificate's authenticity served public interest, especially impacting Scheduled Caste candidates allegedly deprived by fraudulent reservations. Disclosure would expose any misuse of public employment quotas, justifying the SIC's directive.

Decoding RTI's Privacy Firewall: Citations and Clarity

Justice Shinde dissected the RTI Act , quoting Section 8(1)(j) to affirm personal information exemptions unless larger public interest prevails. Section 11 mandates notice and hearing for third-party data treated as confidential.

The court drew on precedents:

- Skill Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State Information Commissioner (2010(3) Mh.LJ 193): Appellate bodies must notify affected third parties.

- Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal ((2020) 5 SCC 481): Section 11 compliance essential for personal info under 8(1)(j).

- Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2013(1) SCC 212): Employee performance is private employer-employee matter; disclosure only if public interest outweighs privacy harm.

- Subhash Bajirao Khemnar v. Dilip Nayku Thorat (WP 1825/2013): No disclosure without satisfaction of public interest.

These reinforced that SIC flouted procedure—no hearing for Ankushkar—and failed to justify public interest, rendering service records non-disclosable.

"The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression ' personal information '."
— Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (cited in judgment)

Court's Sharp Observations

Key excerpts underscore the ruling's bite:

"The impugned order passed by the second Appellate Authority is not only contrary to the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) ... but also contrary to the provisions of Section 11 of the RTI Act as the Second Appellate Authority ... has not given sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner."

"When an information in respect of third party is sought to be disclosed, then the same cannot be done without complying with the mandatory requirement of Section 11 of the RTI Act ."

"In the present case, admittedly, the Second Appellate Authority has not given notice of the appeal to the petitioner who infact is an affected party."

As media reports echoed (e.g., LiveLaw Hindi coverage), this protects genuine employees from fishing expeditions disguised as public interest.

Victory for Privacy: Order Quashed, Rule Absolute

The court allowed the petition, setting aside the SIC order:

"i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

ii) The impugned order dated 15.01.2015 ... is hereby quashed and set-aside.

iii) Rule is made absolute in above terms."

This precedent strengthens safeguards for public servants' records, mandating rigorous public interest tests and hearings. Future RTI applicants targeting careers must prove broader stakes, curbing misuse while upholding transparency where warranted.