Assets and liabilities of public servants not private; Disclosure cannot be completely exempted under S. 8 of RTI Act: Madras High Court

Madras High Court: In a writ petition seeking records relating to an order passed by the State Information Commission, Chennai and to set aside the same and direct the respondents to provide information sought by the petitioner about the disproportionate wealth of an Assistant Engineer in the Water Reservoir Project Sub-Division, Krishnagiri District, in Application dated 01-02-2023, C.V. Karthikeyan, J. while setting aside the impugned order, remanded the issue back to the State Information Commission for fresh consideration, and held that the assets and liabilities of public servants are not private and that disclosure of the same in their service registers cannot be completely exempted under Section 8 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

Background

The petitioner initially filed a first appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 before the Revenue Divisional Officer seeking specific information. However, their request was not fulfilled, prompting them to file a second appeal before the State Information Commission, where again, the information was not provided. The petitioners then filed a petition under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act 2005 before the District Collector, requesting details of the Panchayat Secretary’s service register from his first appointment as a government servant until 31-01-2023, as well as information regarding the movable and immovable assets owned by the Secretary and his family members.

In response, the District Collector issued instructions for the disclosure of information related to the assets, loans, and mortgage loans of the concerned individuals.

When the petitioners sought the early disposal of their second appeal, the court directed that the appeal be examined and orders passed. After filing a representation on 13-03-2024 for compliance, the petitioners received an order on 30-04-2024, which stated that the requested information pertained to personal details of the individual, and thus, could not be granted. In light of this, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

Analysis and Decision

The Court noted that the petitioners appear to have forwarded an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking personal details about the Assistant Engineer. 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 RTI Act and therefore cannot be granted. The same reasoning had been advanced by the first appellate authority and the second appellate authority.

The Court mentioned that Section 8(j) of the RTI Act 2005 had been amended by Act 2022 of 2023 by publication in the Gazette 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, personal information has been exempted from disclosure.

The Court said that the petitioners had sought detailed information regarding the Assistant Engineer’s service, including the date of joining, personal loans, and salary—details that are private to the individual public servant. While acknowledging the necessity for public servants to disclose their assets and liabilities for transparency, the Court emphasized that such disclosures must be subject to reasonable restrictions. It stated that certain information, such as the date of joining, promotion details, and nature of work performed, could be disclosed without harming the public servant’s career. However, sensitive personal information, like financial details, should be protected.

The Court further highlighted that the materials in the service register must be examined, and the reasons for seeking such information should be scrutinized by the relevant authorities. It concluded that a blanket denial of information is not permissible, and if information is withheld, valid reasons for the denial must be provided to ensure transparency and accountability.

In the instant case, the Court found that the impugned order, which denied the requested information on the grounds that it was exempted under Section 8 of the RTI Act as personal information of the public servant could not be upheld. The Court reasoned that the service register of a public servant contains basic details such as the date of joining, transfers, increments, earned leave, and any punishments imposed during the service period. These details, particularly the date of joining and the date of attaining superannuation, are not private in nature, and their disclosure is necessary for transparency.

The Court acknowledged that while certain aspects, like punishments imposed, may be considered private to some extent, as they could stigmatize the public servant, such information is still part of the public record once an individual joins public service. The Court emphasized that by entering public service, an individual must accept that their service details are open to public scrutiny.

As a result, the Court held that the impugned order should be set aside and remanded the issue back to the State Information Commission for fresh consideration. The Court instructed that the procedure prescribed by law should be followed, and the Commission should aim to dispose of the second appeal within two months from the receipt of the order.

[M. Tamilselvan v. District Collector, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 7666, decided on 20-12-2024]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For Petitioners: Mr. R. Thirumoorthy

For Respondents: Mr. C. Vigneswaran Senior Counsel, Mr. S.J. Mohamed Sathik Government Advocate, Mr. J. Ramkumar