SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Del) 362

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SACHIN DATTA, J.
 
Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury – Petitioner
Versus
Punjab And Sind Bank Through Its CPIO & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 12204 of 2025
Decided On : 02-02-2026
 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Petitioner in person.
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajat Arora, Mr. Niraj Kumar and Mr. Sourabh Mahla, Advocates. Mr. Dhruv Rohatgi, Ms. Chandrika Sachdev and Mr. Dhruv Kumar, Advs.

Under the RTI Act, personal information related to government employees is exempt from disclosure unless a demonstrable larger public interest exists.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 7(1), 8(1)(j), and 19(1) - Denial of information related to promotions and vigilance records requested under RTI - CIC upheld the CPIO's denial on grounds of personal information protections - Court affirmed CIC's decision, indicating that no larger public interest was demonstrated for disclosure. (Paras 1, 7, 18, 24)

(B) Personal Information - Definition and scope of personal information drawn from case law, stating that records pertaining to an individual's employment and conduct are personal and exempt from disclosure unless greater public interest is demonstrated. (Paras 19, 22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought records related to promotions of a bank officer who had pending complaints under the POSH Act and IPC. After non-response from CPIO, First and Second Appeals were filed, leading to CIC's dismissal of appeal based on Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 8)

Findings of Court:
The Court found no error in the CIC's ruling, confirming the information requested was indeed personal and protected, with no public interest shown that warranted disclosure. (Paras 18, 24)

Issues: The core issues were whether the information requested is personal information exempt from disclosure and whether any larger public interest justified its release. (Paras 8, 24)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that personal records, unless linked to a larger public interest, are protected from disclosure under the RTI Act, basing its reasoning on established precedents. (Paras 19, 22)

Result: Petition dismissed without costs.

Table of Content
1. petition filed against cic decision (Para 1 , 2)
2. procedure of rti application appeals (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. cic's examination of personal information (Para 6 , 7)
4. background of respondent's promotions (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. petitioner's arguments on information access (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. court's agreement with cic's decision (Para 18 , 19)
7. interpretation of 'public interest' in rti (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
8. final order dismissing the petition (Para 24)

JUDGMENT :

SACHIN DATTA, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Central Information Commission (‘CIC’) in Second Appeal No. CIC/PASBK/A/2024/615256, whereby the petitioner’s second appeal has been dismissed.

2. The controversy arises in the context of an RTI application dated 12.01.2024 filed by the petitioner. Essentially, the petitioner has sought service related records of the respondent no.2, who is stated to be a General Manager in Punjab and Sind Bank. The RTI application filed by the petitioner has been annexed as Annexure P-2 to the present petition. The same is reproduced as under:-

“The Public Information Officer,

Punjab & Sind Bank,

New Delhi – 110023 12.01.2024

Respected Sir,

Reg: Application Under RTI Act,2005

Background: As per information available in public domain, Shri Pankaj Dwivedi (P09475), presently working as General Manager and posted at Head Office of Punjab & Sind Bank, was promoted on 01/04/2018 (Scale V to Scale VI), pending Complaint dated 19/02/2018 under the provisions of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. Shri Pankaj Dwivedi was again promoted on 01/04/2020 (Scale VI to Scale VII) pending criminal complaint under Sec. 354A & 509 of Indian Penal Code.

With reference to the above background, kindly provide inspection of following records, in terms of RTI Act, 2005:

1) Copy of the Vigilance Clearance Certificate relied by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) before the promotion of Shri Pankaj Dwivedi on 01/04/2018.

2) Copy of the Vigilance Clearance Certificate relied by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) before the promotion of Shri Pankaj Dwivedi on 01/04/2020.

3) File Noting including Office Notes (cover to cover), Circulars, OM, IBA, CVC guidelines, Board Resolution etc. relied by the Bank for Constitution of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for the purpose of promotion from Scale V to Scale VI for the year 2018.

4) File Noting including Office Notes (cover to cover), Circulars, OM, IBA, CVC guidelines, Board Resolution etc. relied by your Bank for Constitution of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for the purpose of promotion from Scale VI to Scale VII for the year 2020.

5) Name, official telephone no & Email address of the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO)

a) As on 01/04/2018

b) As on 01/04/2020

c) As on date of providing information.

Note: The certified copies of the relevant records shall be obtained after inspection.

(Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury)”

3. It is submitted that having received no response from the Central Public Information Officer (“CPIO”) within the statutory period of 30 days prescribed under Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act, the petitioner preferred a First Appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Act vide Appeal No. PASBK/A/E/24/00018 dated 13.02.2024.

4. It is averred that after the expiry of the statutory period, the CPIO, responded to the RTI application on 16.03.2024. Except for the information sought under Paragraph 5 of the application, the remaining information was denied by the CPIO by invoking Section 8(1)(j). The reply dated 16.03.2024 passed by the CPIO is reproduced as under –

5. It is further submitted that no order was passed by the First Appellate Authority (“FAA”) within the prescribed timeframe. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a Second Appeal under Section 19 (3) of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission (“CIC”), vide Appeal No.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top