Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1299
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
Lt. Col. K. Jainendra Kumar, S/o. Mt. K.K. Krishnan Nair (L) – Petitioner
Versus
State Information Commission, Kerala, Punnen Road, Thiruvananthapuram and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 16142 Of 2017
Decided On : 20-05-2025
For the Petitioner: Liju V. Stephen, Indu Susan Jacob .
For the Respondents: Shri. M. Ajay, Sc, State Information Commn., Smt. K.V. Rashmi, SC, Technopark, D. Anil Kumar.
Personal information under the RTI Act is exempt from disclosure unless a larger public interest is established, and due process must be followed in such disclosures.
Headnote:
(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 - Disclosure of personal information - The petitioner, a retired officer, challenged the disclosure of his personal details sought by a fellow resident, arguing it was harassment and did not serve public interest - The appellate authority's order directing disclosure was quashed for failing to consider the public interest test and the principles of natural justice. (Paras 6, 20, 21)
(B) Public Interest - The court emphasized that personal information is exempt from disclosure unless it serves a larger public interest, and the burden lies on the authority to justify disclosure. (Paras 16, 19)
(C) Natural Justice - The court noted that the petitioner was not given notice before the appellate authority's decision, violating principles of natural justice. (Paras 5, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a retired Lt. Colonel, owns an apartment and alleges harassment from a fellow resident who sought his personal information through RTI, which was initially denied but later ordered to be disclosed by the appellate authority without notice to the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
The court found the appellate authority's order unsustainable as it did not consider the public interest or the privacy rights of the petitioner.
Issues: The main issues were whether the disclosure of personal information served a public interest and whether the petitioner was afforded due process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that personal information is protected under Section 8(1)(j) unless a larger public interest is demonstrated, and that the authority must comply with the notice requirements of Section 11.
Result: The impugned order is quashed, and the appellate authority is directed to rehear the appeal with notice to both parties.
JUDGMENT :
(MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.)
The petitioner, a retired Lt. Colonel from the Indian Army, contends that he is the lawful owner of a residential apartment, Sanjay Resorts, situated in Vivekananda Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram, having purchased the same through Sale Deed No.794/2008 of Sasthamangalam SRO from one Col. K.G. Pillai, also a retired Army officer. The petitioner had settled in Thiruvananthapuram post-retirement and was employed as the Chief Security Officer at Technopark, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. It is submitted that the fourth respondent, who owns Sanjay Resorts, resides on the third floor of the same apartment complex, and is a practising lawyer, has been continuously harassing the petitioner and other apartment owners. Litigations and proceedings between the petitioner and the fourth respondent revealed that they were not on good terms.
3. The petitioner alleges that in a further attempt to harass the petitioner, the 4th respondent filed Ext.P3 application under the Right to Information Act 2005, before the 2nd respondent, seeking the petitioner’s personal information, such as age, date of birth, and biodata. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 objections invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts disclosure of personal information, unless it involves a larger public interest. Accepting the objections, the 2nd respondent rejected the application through Ext. P5.
4. Aggrieved, the 4th respondent filed Ext.P6 first appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act before the 3rd respondent, to which the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 objections. The appellate authority, i.e., the 3rd respondent, directed the 2nd respondent to furnish the information sought under Questions Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and rejected the request for personal details.
5. Dissatisfied, the 4th respondent preferred a second appeal before the 1st respondent, who, without issuing any notice to the petitioner as required under Section 19(4) of the RTI Act, passed Ext.P9 order directing the 2nd respondent to disclose the personal details of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the same in W.P(C) No.41528/2016, and this Court, by Ext.P10 judgment dated 17.02.2017, set aside the said order and directed reconsideration of the matter.
6. Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent passed a fresh order dated 29.04.2017 once again directing the disclosure of the petitioner’s personal information through Ext.P11. The petitioner submits that the said order is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the RTI Act.
7. It is contended that the personal information sought does not serve any public interest and is sought only with an intention to harass and take revenge on the petitioner, owing to personal enmity. The petitioner highlights that a similar earlier application, filed as Ext.P12 by the 4th respondent, had already been rejected, and no appeal was preferred, and hence, a second application on the same issue is not maintainable. It is submitted that Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act clearly stipulates that personal information should not be disclosed unless it serves a larger public interest, which is conspicuously absent in the present case.
8. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it is contended that the RTI application filed on 12th May 2015, sought certified copies of various documents pertaining to the petitioner's personal details submitted for his appointment. The information sought was as follows:
1. Certified copy of the appointment order of Mr.K.Jainendrakumar, S/o. Krishnan Nair, residing at TC 17/1296-7, Sanjay Resorts, Thirumala P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-06, now working as the Chief Security Officer, in Technopark, Kazhakootam, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Certified copy of joining date, month & year of the said K.Jainendrakumar as the Chief Security Officer, in Technopark, Kazhakootam, Thiruvananthapuram.
3. Certified copy of the application form and bio-data submitted by the said K. Jainendrakumar before the C
