The Right to Information Act protects personal information from disclosure unless a larger public interest is established.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners challenge Ext.P4 order dated 10.03.2023, passed by the State Information Commission, whereby the Commission directed the re-examination of the Right to Information (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RTI application’) application submitted by the 1^st respondent and ordered the disclosure of the information sought, free of cost, under the Right to Information Act , 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RTI Act’).

2. It is submitted that the 1^st respondent, while working as Under Secretary in the Department Test Wing of the Commission, filed Ext. P1 RTI application on 24.12.2018 seeking information regarding various aspects of the Public Service Commission, which contained 16 questions with sub- questions. To the requisition, the Information Officer made him available admissible information vide Ext. P2 reply dated 23.01.2019. The 1^st petitioner also addressed a letter on 30.01.2019 to the 1^st respondent informing that copies of 27 pages in relation to the questions 3,4,6, and 7 should be made available to him on payment of Rs.54/-, and the same was given to him on 05.03.2019. Further, an appeal was preferred before the appellate authority of the Commission, and the appellate authority considered the appeal and passed Ext.P3 order dated 08.03.2019. Further, aggrieved by the said order, the 1^st respondent approached the 2^nd respondent, and the 2^nd respondent passed Ext. P4 order dated 10.03.2023 directing to re-examine the application and give a clear and accurate answer, completely free of cost.

3. The questions for which the information was not furnished are as follows:

4. It is contended that the information sought constitutes personal information within the meaning of Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, having no nexus with any public activity or public interest, and that disclosure of such confidential records relating to disciplinary proceedings would result in an unwarranted invasion of privacy and impair the fiduciary relationship between the Commission and its officers. The petitioners assert that such requests do not fall within the purview of “information” under the RTI Act, which is intended to relate to the general functioning of the public authority and, as defined under Section 2(j), does not extend to disclosure of personal or private matters.

5. The petitioners place reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inCBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay [ (2011) 8 SCC 497 ], Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission [(2013) 1 SCC

212] andCanara Bank v. C.S. Shyam [ (2018) 11 SCC 426 ], to contend that the right to information, though a valuable statutory right, is not absolute and is subject to statutory exemptions intended to protect confidentiality, fiduciary relationships and administrative efficiency. It is contended that service records, disciplinary proceedings, complaints, inquiry reports, and personal details of employees constitute personal information exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, unless a larger public interest is clearly established. The petitioners also rely on the decision of the Central Information Commission in Manoj Arya v. Central Public Information Officer , Cabinet Secretariat (File No.CIC/SM/A/2013/000058 dated 26.06.2013), to contend that inquiry reports and complaint-related records concerning third parties are personal in nature and cannot be disclosed in the absence of an overriding public intere