Unmasking the Files: CIC Rules 'Sub-Judice' No Excuse to Deny RTI Access

In a significant ruling for transparency in public sector employment, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has struck down the practice of withholding service records on the pretext of ongoing legal proceedings. Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari held that public authorities cannot deny Right to Information (RTI) requests simply by labeling a matter as "sub-judice."

The Dispute Over Missing Records

The case involves Appellant Sushil Kumar, a former General Manager (Technical) at Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. (EPI), who filed multiple RTI applications seeking clarity on his pay fixation, seniority, and internal selection meeting notes following a retrospective recovery order of over Rs. 16 lakh.

Mr. Kumar argued that the recovery, initiated over a decade after his initial appointment, was unauthorized. However, when he sought the underlying documents—such as minutes of meetings, calculation sheets, and HR correspondences—the Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the requests. The refusals were primarily based on Section 8(1)(j) (personal information of third parties) and Section 8(1)(h) (information that would impede an investigation, cited due to the sub-judice nature of his service dispute).

Arguments: Privacy vs. Accountability

The Respondent, Engineering Projects (India) Ltd., maintained that the requested information included confidential remarks regarding other employees and interview board comments, protected under the privacy umbrella of the RTI Act. They further argued that providing documentation in an active legal case could prejudice the proceedings.

Conversely, the Appellant asserted his right to access documents directly related to his own pay protection, arguing that he could not effectively challenge the company's actions without the relevant records that document the original approval of his service terms.

The Commission’s Legal Analysis

The Commission dismantled the Respondent's arguments by highlighting the crucial distinction between general third-party privacy and an individual's right to access their own service-related information.

Relying on the precedent set by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in A.S. Mallikarjunaswamy vs. SIC & Ors. (2023) , the Commission noted that where an applicant seeks service particulars to defend their own matter, the bar under Section 8(1)(j) is inapplicable. The court had previously observed that denying such information amounts to denying a person the opportunity to adequately present their legal grievances.

Furthermore, Commissioner Tiwari issued a stern reminder to the public authority regarding the scope of the RTI Act: "The Commission counsels the Respondent that there is no provision in RTI Act which allows denial of information on the grounds of sub-judice."

Key Observations

• On Right to Defense: "The Commission notes that where the information of any officer is sought by the applicant to defend his own service matter, then bar of Section 8(1)(j) ... may not be applicable."
• On Sub-Judice Claims: "The Commission counsels the Respondent that there is no provision in RTI Act which allows denial of information on the grounds of sub-judice."
• On Procedural Intent: "In view of the applicability of above ratio in this case, exemptions claimed are incorrect and therefore, the order of the CPIO are set aside."

The Final Verdict: Improving Administrative Transparency

The CIC has set aside the previous orders of the CPIO and directed the current CPIO-cum-AGM to provide the Appellant with an inspection of all relevant records. To prevent the "run-around" often experienced by applicants, the Commission ordered that: 1. All relevant records be brought to a single location for inspection. 2. The Appellant be provided an advance list of files, including file numbers and the nature of correspondence. 3. Any sensitive information must be redacted using Section 10 of the Act rather than refusing the file in its entirety.

This ruling serves as a vital safeguard for employees against arbitrary bureaucratic gatekeeping, reaffirming that the RTI Act remains a robust tool for accountability, even when active litigation is underway.