Back
RTI Privacy Shield: Rajasthan HC Rejects Demand for Colleague's Salary Slips
In a ruling emphasizing the boundaries of transparency under the , the dismissed a filed by Smt. Kanta Kumawat. The petitioner sought salary details of Omprakash, an employee in the , for . Justice Kuldeep Mathur, who recently upheld eviction notices against temple encroachers in another high-profile case, ruled that such remains exempt from disclosure without .
From RTI Application to High Court Battle
The saga began on , when Kanta Kumawat filed an RTI application requesting pay slips and salary details of Omprakash from the Additional Superintendent of Police in Bhilwara, who also served as the Public Information Officer (PIO). The request was denied on , and upheld by the on . Authorities classified the data as concerning a , invoking RTI exemptions.
Aggrieved, Kumawat approached the High Court under , seeking to quash the Commission's order and direct the Superintendent of Police (also the Appellate Authority) to release the documents. The core dispute: Does RTI compel disclosure of an employee's private salary records?
Petitioner's Push for Transparency vs. Department's Privacy Stand
Kanta Kumawat argued that the salary information was public records held by a government department, essential for her needs—though specifics on were not detailed in the judgment. Her counsel, , urged the court to override the denials and enforce RTI compliance.
Respondents, including the , the Superintendent of Police, and the Additional Superintendent, countered that Omprakash was a uninvolved in the RTI process. They stressed that salary details fall under " ," exempt under RTI provisions, as they relate solely to the employer-employee relationship governed by service rules. No justified breaching this privacy, they maintained.
Supreme Court Precedent Seals the Deal
Justice Mathur's bench delved into established jurisprudence, primarily relying on the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. (2013) 1 SCC 212. The apex court had held that employee performance and related details are confidential matters between the employee and employer, disclosing them without serves no transparency goal.
The High Court found " " in the refusals, aligning perfectly with this principle. It distinguished such data from records tied to public activity, reinforcing that RTI isn't a tool for prying into private affairs.
Key Observations from the Bench
"the information sought is personal in nature, pertains to a, and is therefore exempted from disclosure under the provisions of the RTI Act."
"information relating to the performance of an employee or officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer, governed by service rules, and falls within the ambit of ''."
"Disclosure of such information, in the absence of any, has no relationship with any public activity or."
These quotes underscore the court's firm stance on privacy safeguards.
Dismissal with Broader Implications
The stood dismissed on , with the stay petition also disposed of. This decision reinforces RTI limitations on third-party personal data, particularly salary and service records. Public authorities gain clearer grounds to deny such requests, potentially curbing frivolous demands while prompting RTI applicants to demonstrate tangible .
For employees, it affirms confidentiality in an era of digital transparency. Future cases may test boundaries where corruption or misuse allegations arise, but here, privacy prevailed.
