In a significant judgment upholding transparency in governance, the Madras High Court has ruled that public servants’ assets and liabilities are not private information and cannot be fully exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The court emphasized that while certain personal details may remain protected, public accountability mandates disclosure of key service and financial details of government officials. Justice C.V. Karthikeyan presided over the case, delivering a nuanced judgment balancing privacy rights with the public’s right to information.
Background
The case arose when petitioners M. Tamilselvan and Mrs. T. Sangeetha, residents of Chennai, filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 33854 of 2024) challenging the denial of their RTI application. The petitioners had sought details regarding the service records, assets, and liabilities of the fourth respondent, Mr. L. Muniyandi, a public servant employed as an Assistant Engineer in the Water Reservoir Project Sub-Division, Krishnagiri Taluk.
The information, initially requested on February 1, 2023, included records of the public servant’s date of joining, details of promotions, and a declaration of his assets and liabilities. The petitioners argued that the disclosure of such details was necessary for ensuring transparency and detecting potential instances of disproportionate assets.
The RTI application was denied by the third respondent, citing Section 8(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts personal information from disclosure unless it serves a larger public interest. Appeals to the first appellate authority and the State Information Commission yielded the same response, prompting the petitioners to approach the High Court.
The petitioners, represented by Advocate R. Thirumoorthy, argued that the information sought was not purely personal but pertained to matters of public accountability. The respondents, including the District Collector of Chennai, the Revenue Divisional Officer, and Mr. Muniyandi, were represented by senior counsel Mr. C. Vigneswaran, government advocate Mr. S.J. Mohamed Sathik, and advocate Mr. J. Ramkumar, respectively.
Key Legal Issues
1. Applicability of Section 8 of the RTI Act: Whether service and financial details of a public servant qualify as “personal information” under Section 8(j) of the RTI Act.
2. Amendment to Section 8(j): The 2023 amendment to Section 8(j) further restricted disclosure of personal information unless required for a compelling public interest.
3. Balancing Privacy and Public Accountability: How to reconcile the privacy rights of public servants with the public’s right to transparency in governance.
Court’s Observations
Justice C.V. Karthikeyan delivered a detailed judgment, outlining the scope and limitations of the RTI Act concerning public servants. Key observations included:
– Transparency vs. Privacy:
“Once an individual accepts to join public service, he must accept that he lives in public glare and cannot avoid the general public from seeking details at least so far as their service is concerned.”
– Scope of Disclosure:
The court clarified that information such as service dates, promotions, and assets/liabilities are inherently linked to public accountability and cannot be shielded under the guise of privacy.
– Reasoned Denials:
The court stressed that decisions to deny information must be accompanied by clear reasoning, ensuring they are neither arbitrary nor unjustified.
Court’s Decision
The High Court set aside the orders of the State Information Commission and appellate authorities, which had denied the RTI request. The matter was remanded to the first respondent, the District Collector, for fresh consideration. The court directed that the second appeal pending before the State Information Commission be disposed of within two months, in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgment.
Justice Karthikeyan noted that while certain aspects of a public servant’s records, such as disciplinary actions, might warrant privacy, details like assets, liabilities, and service dates are not private information. The court held:
“The assets and liabilities of a public servant will have to be necessarily disclosed and cannot be shielded from public scrutiny. Such information is integral to transparency in governance.”
Representation
Petitioners: Advocated by Mr. R. Thirumoorthy.
Respondents: Represented by Mr. C. Vigneswaran (District Collector), Mr. S.J. Mohamed Sathik (Government Advocate), and Mr. J. Ramkumar (Fourth Respondent)
