Court Protects Personal and Disciplinary Records from Indiscriminate Disclosure under RTI Act
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., has quashed an order issued by the Kerala State Information Commission, which had directed the disclosure of disciplinary records and file notings related to a former employee of the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The judgment underscores the protection of personal and service-related information, emphasizing the balance between transparency and privacy.
The case involved a petition by the State Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority of KPSC, challenging the State Information Commission's directive to disclose documents related to disciplinary proceedings against Rani Wilfred, a former Joint Secretary at KPSC. The Information Commission had ruled that the records should be made available to Wilfred, arguing that they were part of the disciplinary proceedings and, hence, not confidential.
The High Court, however, emphasized the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which protects personal information from disclosure unless a larger public interest is demonstrated. The court clarified that the proviso to Section 8(1)(j), which states that information that cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be denied to any person, does not override the substantive provision.
The judgment noted that the information sought pertained to internal deliberations and file notings, which constitute personal information with no direct relationship to public activity or interest. The court found that the Information Commission had failed to undertake the necessary balancing exercise between transparency and privacy.
Furthermore, the court observed that the amendments introduced through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which broaden the scope of exemption for personal information, reflect a statutory shift towards greater protection of such information, although the amendments are prospective.
The court also addressed the penal provisions under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, stating that such actions require a finding of malafide denial or deliberate obstruction. It concluded that the stance taken by the petitioners was legally sustainable and did not warrant penal action.
This ruling reaffirms the protection of personal and disciplinary records from indiscriminate disclosure under the RTI Act, highlighting the need for a balanced approach to privacy and transparency.
Bottom line:-
Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 - Information related to personal and disciplinary records of an individual is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) unless larger public interest justifies disclosure. The proviso to Section 8(1)(j) does not grant unrestricted access to such information and cannot nullify the substantive provision.
Statutory provision(s): Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 8(1)(j), Section 20(1); Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
