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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 4361

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
ANIL KUMAR R. – Appellant
Versus
THE KERALA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 30847 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL, SMT.ANN SUSAN GEORGE, SMT.ASWATHY BABU, SMT.GOPIKA S. NAIR
For the Respondents: SRI.JOSE JONES JOSEPH, SC, KERALA STATE CHALACHITRA ACADEMY, SMT.MARTEENA MILAN P.J., SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN (SR.)

The disclosure of information must consider public interest over third-party objections as per statutory provisions.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged Ext.P9 order of the State Information Commission, alleging wrongful denial of information under Section 4 and 11 of the relevant disclosure laws. The court found that the Commission failed to assess the public interest against the third-party's objection. Results in quashing Ext.P9 and ordering a rehearing of the appeal with new directives. The petition is allowed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to denial of information. (Para 1 , 2)
2. public interest considered over objections. (Para 4)
3. order to rehear the appeal. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Ext.P9 order passed by the State Information Commission. Petitioner had sought certain information regarding the employees of the Kerala State Chalachithra Academy through Ext.P1. Except for the information for question No.7, all others were furnished. The petitioner was not satisfied with the same and filed an appeal, which also resulted in a dismissal.

2. The petitioner thereafter approached the State Information Commission, which passed Ext.P9, the impugned order, on the ground that since question No.7 pertained to third- party information, notices were issued to the third party, and as they opposed supplying information, the same cannot be granted.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Section

4, which states the obligation of the public authority to disclose the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations. Petitioner also relies on Section 11 , which contends that even if the third party is opposed to granting information, as per the proviso, except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.

4. In view of the above provisions, the State Information Commission was not justified in rejecting the request solely on the ground that the third party objected to the grant of information. The State Information Commission did not consider the impact of the proviso to Section 11 , as to whether the larger public interest outweighs the grant of information sought for.

5. Under such circumstances, Ext.P9 order cannot be sustained, and the same is quashed, and the 1st respondent is directed to rehear the appeal No.A.P.2300(3)/2024/S.I.C (File No.157/S.I.C-G1/2024) and pass fresh orders with notice to the petitioner and the 4th respondent, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-

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 Back to top