Back
Employee's Right to Know: MP High Court Mandates ACR Disclosure Under RTI, Rejects Privacy Shield
In a significant boost for transparency in government service evaluations, the has ruled that public employees are entitled to obtain copies of their own through the . Justice Deepak Khot dismissed a writ petition by the State of Madhya Pradesh challenging an order from the , affirming that privacy exemptions cannot block such disclosures—especially when precedents demand ACR communication for fairness.
This decision, delivered on , in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chief Information Commissioner & Others (WP No. 10464/2010), underscores the primacy of and public administration transparency over blanket privacy claims.
From Rejection to Revelation: The RTI Journey of One Employee
The dispute originated from an RTI application by a government employee seeking details of his ACRs. The and denied the request, citing , which exempts personal information unrelated to public activity or where privacy invasion outweighs public interest. Undeterred, the applicant escalated to the via second appeal.
On , the CIC directed disclosure, prompting the State to file a writ petition under . The core questions: Can ACRs be withheld as "personal information" under RTI exemptions? Does the Commission need "" on public interest before ordering release, as per guidelines?
State's Stand: Privacy Trumps Transparency
The State, represented by , argued that ACRs fall squarely under Section 8(1)(j)'s privacy shield. They invoked the 's ruling in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (2012) 13 SCC 61, emphasizing that disclosures require recorded that public interest outweighs privacy concerns. Absent this, the CIC's order was flawed, they contended, as it bypassed in performance appraisals.
appeared for the CIC, defending the Commission's directive.
Court's Pivot: Precedents Seal the Deal
Justice Khot meticulously balanced competing rights, drawing on landmark judgments. In
Dev Dutt v. Union of India
(2008) 8 SCC 725, the apex court mandated communicating all ACR entries to public servants—poor, average, or good—for representation, rooted in
's
.
"Fairness and transparency in public administration requires... all entries... must be communicated,"
the Court quoted.
Turning to Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi , Justice Khot clarified its nuance: while objective balancing is needed for third-party or sensitive disclosures, an employee's own ACRs are different. These aren't third-party secrets but evaluations the employee must access for career fairness. No unwarranted privacy invasion occurs when the seeker is the subject, especially since non-communication leaves RTI as the sole remedy.
"The applicant has no option except to apply under RTI and in no case such exception can be carved out,"
the judgment observed, integrating the constitutional interplay of information rights and privacy.
Media reports echoed this, noting the ruling empowers employees where administrative rules lag.
Key Observations
"Fairness and transparency in public administration requires that all entries (whether poor, fair, average, good or very good) in the annual confidential report of a public servant... must be communicated to him within a reasonable period."— Dev Dutt v. Union of India (quoted in judgment, Para 3)
"The decision has to be based on recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy..."— Bihar PSC v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (Para 4)
"ACRs are required to be communicated to the employees. In absence of such communication, the applicant has no option except to apply under RTI."(Para 5)
"The public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance factor between right to privacy and right to information..."(Para 5)
No Retreat for the State: Petition Dismissed
The High Court affirmed the CIC's
order:
"Accordingly, the impugned order dated
is hereby affirmed. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs."
Implications : This precedent strengthens RTI as a tool for self-accountability in bureaucracy, overriding privacy for personal records mandated by law. Future denials of own-ACR requests may falter, promoting proactive communication and reducing RTI backlogs. For employees, it's a clear path to appraisals; for departments, a nudge toward transparency compliance.
