Personal information of public employees exempt under RTI S.8(1)(j) absent overriding public interest.

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.12.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:

“The details of post held by Mr. NC Gopalakrishnan [S/o Chathunny, Naduvathara] in your branch in April and May of 1990, his gross monthly salary, net salary after deductions at that time, given residential address and detailed information about his loan [probably from Provident fund]

for buying a two-wheeler [Hero Honda, KL-8/9832] in September or October or November 1990.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 18.01.2024 stating as under:

“With reference to the above we inform you that the premise of the data of the respondent Organisation is the Salary Roll Number which has not been mentioned in your RTI application. In the absence of the Salary Roll Number there may be more than one person with the same name and the probability of name mismatch cannot be ruled out.

Also even if the Salary Roll Number was mentioned in the RTI application, the information sought by you would have been exempted from disclosure under Sec 8(1)(e) and Sec8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Sec 8(1)(e) - Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.

Sec 8(1)(j) Information which relates to the personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the CPIO is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.02.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 26.02.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

5. A written submission dated 28.07.2025 filed by the Appellant is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:

“Relief Sought: Direction to LIC to furnish salary details of Late N.C. Gopalakrishnan (Higher Grade Assistant), including gross & net salary for March & April 1990, vehicle loan details of 1990, penalty and compensation.

I. Background of the RTI Request RTI Application dated 25.12.2023 sought:

Gross and net salary of Late N.C. Gopalakrishnan (HGA) for March and April 1990.

Residential address in service records.

Details of any loan for a two-wheeler (KL-8/9832) taken during 1990.

Purpose: To rebut inflated income claims made in a pending family court case, where the employee’s daughter (Appellant’s wife Padma G) submitted two Affidavits in 2023, with two different and exaggerated total monthly salary-amounts of her father late NC Gopalakrishnan (LIC employee) & mother VV Mini, during 1990, to prove that her parents were rich enough to buy her a house and to meet all expenses of herself and son after wedding. In Padma’s Counter-Affidavit on IA-3/2023, parents’ total monthly salary was stated as Rs.11,000 in 1990 (Annexure 1, Page 1, Para 3, last line) and in Padma’s Counter-Affidavit of OP-356/23, it is above Rs.15,000 (Annexure 2, Page 1, Para3). Mini's gross salary was Rs.3243 in 1990 as per RTI Reply of GHSS, Kodakara dated 01.01.2024 (Annexure 3). So, Gopalakrishnan’s salary may be either 11,000 -3243= Rs. 7,757 or 15,000-3243=Rs.11,757. But his colleagues say that it was less than Rs.5000 in 1990. Appellant needs to prove to the Court that both of the said ‘salary amounts’ are significantly inflated.

II. Grounds of Rejection by LIC (CPIO and FAA) CPIO rejected RTI Application under:

Section 8(1)(e) – Fiduciary relationship, and S