Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 59206
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Anand Venkatesh, J
K. V. Venugopal – Appellant
Versus
The First Appellate Authority Joint Commissioner Office – Respondent
WP No. 24376 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.L. Dhamodharan
For the Respondents: Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan
The court clarified that not all public servant data is private; essential service information must be disclosed under RTI.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(g) - Personal information of public servant sought under RTI - Denial of information based on exemption for personal data - Court held that certain service-related information is not private and must be disclosed - Previous order in WP No.33854 of 2024 applied. (Paras 3, 11, 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed for information under the RTI Act but was denied on grounds of personal data. The court found the reasons for denial insufficient, particularly for service-related details.
Findings of Court:
The court held that service-related information must be disclosed unless it is private information that could harm the public servant’s reputation.
Issues: Whether the personal information exemption is applicable to service-related inquiries under the RTI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that not all information about public servants qualifies as personal and certain details mandated by law must be disclosed to promote transparency.
Result: The impugned order was quashed, and a direction was made to provide the information sought by the petitioner.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition allowed with directives for compliance. (Para 1 , 2 , 5) |
| 2. personal information exemption under rti act. (Para 3) |
| 3. service details must be disclosed; public interest outweighs personal privacy. (Para 4) |
For Petitioner(s): Mr.L. Dhamodharan For Respondent(s): Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3 ORDER This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the
3rd respondent dated 05.06.2025 and for a direction to the 2nd respondent to comply with the directives issued by the 1st respondent through communication dated 23.05.2024 and which was reiterated by the 2nd respondent through communication dated 29.05.2025 and to furnish the information as sought for by the petitioner in his application dated 27.03.2025.
2. Heard Mr.L.Damodharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents
1 to 3.
3. The 3rd respondent has refused to give the information on the ground that it involves providing details of individual persons and therefore there is a bar under section 8(1) (j) and 8(1) (g) of the Right to Information Act.
4. The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the earlier order passed by this Court in WP No.33854 of 2024 dated
20.12.2024. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder :-
8. The petitioners herein appear to have forwarded an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking personal details about the fourth respondent. The petitioners had sought information relating to the entries in the service register about his initial date of joining, the assets and liabilities in his name and in the names of his family members and such other similar details. The petitioner had received a communication from the third respondent that the information sought is protected under Section 8 of the Act and therefore cannot be granted. The same reasoning had been advanced by the first appellate authority and the second appellate authority.
9. It must be mentioned that Section 8 (j) of the Right to Information Act 2005 had been amended by Act 2022 of 2023 by publication in the Gazettee of India on 11.08.2023. Prior to the amendment information relating to personal data may be disclosed, if the Officer is satisfied that it is required in the larger public interest. After amendment, however, it had been stated as follows:-
Section 8 (j) “an information which relates to personal information.”
10. It is thus seen that personal information has been exempted from disclosure.
11. The petitioners in their application had sought information about the date of joining in public service by the fourth respondent and practically every detail relating to his service including loans which he had obtained and the salary which he receives. These are information which are exclusive to the fourth respondent. No doubt, it is true that the assets and liability of a public servant will have to be necessarily disclosed and cannot be shielded from public scrutiny but there should be a reasonable restriction of the same. Such of the information which could not harm the career of the public servant could also be disclosed like the date of his joining the service, the date of promotion if any and the nature of work discharged by him. But there are certain information which necessarily have to be protected from being disclosed. Therefore, the materials available in the service register would have to be scrutinised and the reason why those materials are required also have to be verified and examined by the Officials concerned. There cannot be an order denying every information. Even if any information is sought to be denied or to be disclosed, then necessary reasons for such denial should be provided.
12. In the instant case, the order impugned only states that the information sought is exempted under Section 8 of the Act as it relates to the personal information of the public servant/R-4. I am not
