RTI Act Does Not Authorize Access to Third-Party Bidding or Personal Employee Data: Punjab & Haryana HC - 2025-03-04

Transparency vs. Privacy: Punjab & Haryana HC Curbs Misuse of RTI Act

In a significant ruling aimed at balancing the transparency mandates of the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the right to administrative efficiency and privacy, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside orders directing the disclosure of sensitive third-party bidding and employee data.

The decision, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi, clarifies that the RTI Act is a tool for accountability, not a mechanism to facilitate the harassment of public authorities or the exploitation of confidential commercial and personal information.

The Conflict: Data Requests Under Scrutiny

The case arose from two writ petitions filed by the Punjab State Federation of Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. (Sugarfed Punjab) challenging orders issued by the State Information Commission, Punjab. The Commission had directed the Federation to release detailed records regarding the auction and sale of molasses, bagasse, and press mud, as well as extensive personal and expenditure records of employees.

The Federation contended that these requests were not driven by public interest but by a malicious intent to harass the organization. They argued that the information sought—specifically regarding private bidders and internal employee records—did not fall under the purview of mandatory disclosure and was protected by privacy and commercial confidentiality clauses.

Legal Precedents and Reasoning

Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi emphasized that while the RTI Act is a "cherished right" meant to fight corruption, it is not absolute. The Court relied heavily on two landmark Supreme Court precedents to draw the boundary:

1. Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) : The Court reiterated that the Act should not be converted into a tool for the "oppression or intimidation" of honest officials. Indiscriminate demands for information that do not further public accountability disrupt the regular functioning of public authorities.
2. Canara Bank vs. C.S. Shyam (2017) : Citing the Girish Ramchandra Deshpande principle, the Court held that performance details, including internal memos and punishment records of individual employees, constitute "personal information" exempted under Section 8(j) of the RTI Act. Such information has no relationship to public activity and its disclosure without clear public interest is a violation of privacy.

Key Observations

The Court underscored the following points in its rationale:

• "The Right to Information Act, 2005 has been enacted to ensure the transparency of work within the Departments. The same does not give a right to anyone to seek information with a motive, which amounts to harassing the employees of the Department."
• "As per the settled principle of law, third party information as to who had submitted the bid and what were the documents submitted by the said person, cannot be given under the RTI Act, 2005 as the same is barred under Rule 8."
• "The performance of an employee/officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression 'personal information'."

Implications for Future Transparency

By setting aside the Information Commission's orders, the High Court has reinforced the protection of commercial interests and individual privacy against "fishing expeditions" disguised as RTI requests.

This judgment serves as a stern reminder that while the RTI Act is a formidable tool for transparency, it must operate within the constraints of confidentiality and the larger public interest. For public authorities, this is a clarion call that they are legally empowered to withhold documentation that is either sensitive to third-party commercial interests or fundamentally personal in nature.