Lt. Col.K.Jainendra Kumar (Retd) vs State Information Commission
2025 Latest Caselaw 6005 Ker

Kerala High Court

Lt. Col.K.Jainendra Kumar (Retd) vs State Information Commission on 20 May, 2025

W.P(C) 16142/17                 1                2025:KER:34302

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

    TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1947

                    WP(C) NO. 16142 OF 2017

PETITIONER/S:

          LT. COL.K.JAINENDRA KUMAR (RETD),
          AGED 60 YEARS,S/O. MT. K.K. KRISHNAN NAIR (L),
          TC 17/1296-7, VNRA 115,SANJAY RESORTS, VIVEKANANDA
          NAGAR,PANGODE, THIRUMALA P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

          BY ADVS.
          LIJU.V.STEPHEN
          INDU SUSAN JACOB



RESPONDENT/S:

    1     STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION,
          KERALA,PUNNEN ROAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

    2     THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,
          TECHNO PARK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

    3     THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
          TECHNO PARK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
    4     WILSON MULLASSERIL,
          ADVOCATE, T.C.17/1296-8. SANJAY RESORTS,VIVEKANANDA
          NAGAR, THIRUMALA P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695006.

          BY ADVS.
          SHRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN
          SMT.K.V.RASHMI, SC, TECHNOPARK
          D.ANIL KUMAR-R4


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03.04.2025, THE COURT ON 20.05.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C) 16142/17                                 2                                  2025:KER:34302



                          MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
                  ......................................................
                          W.P(C) No.16142 of 2017
                   .............................................................
                  Dated this the 20th day of May, 2025
                                       JUDGMENT

The petitioner, a retired Lt. Colonel from the Indian Army,

contends that he is the lawful owner of a residential apartment, Sanjay

Resorts, situated in Vivekananda Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram, having

purchased the same through Sale Deed No.794/2008 of Sasthamangalam

SRO from one Col. K.G. Pillai, also a retired Army officer. The petitioner

had settled in Thiruvananthapuram post-retirement and was employed

as the Chief Security Officer at Technopark, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. It is submitted that the fourth respondent, who owns Sanjay

Resorts, resides on the third floor of the same apartment complex, and

is a practising lawyer, has been continuously harassing the petitioner

and other apartment owners. Litigations and proceedings between the

petitioner and the fourth respondent revealed that they were not on

good terms.

W.P(C) 16142/17 3 2025:KER:34302

3. The petitioner alleges that in a further attempt to harass the

petitioner, the 4th respondent filed Ext.P3 application under the Right to

Information Act 2005, before the 2nd respondent, seeking the petitioner's

personal information, such as age, date of birth, and biodata. The

petitioner filed Ext.P4 objections invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act,

which exempts disclosure of personal information, unless it involves a

larger public interest. Accepting the objections, the 2nd respondent

rejected the application through Ext. P5.

4. Aggrieved, the 4th respondent filed Ext.P6 first appeal under

Section 19 of the RTI Act before the 3rd respondent, to which the

petitioner submitted Ext.P7 objections. The appellate authority, i.e., the

3rd respondent, directed the 2nd respondent to furnish the information

sought under Questions Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and rejected the request for

personal details.

5. Dissatisfied, the 4th respondent preferred a second appeal

before the 1st respondent, who, without issuing any notice to the

petitioner as required under Section 19(4) of the RTI Act, passed Ext.P9

order directing the 2nd respondent to disclose the personal details of the

petitioner. The petitioner challenged the same in W.P(C) No.41528/2016, W.P(C) 16142/17 4 2025:KER:34302

and this Court, by Ext.P10 judgment dated 17.02.2017, set aside the said

order and directed reconsideration of the matter.

6. Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent passed a fresh order

dated 29.04.2017 once again directing the disclosure of the petitioner's

personal information through Ext.P11. The petitioner submits that the

said order is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural

justice and the provisions of the RTI Act.

7. It is contended that the personal information sought does

not serve any public interest and is sought only with an intention to

harass and take revenge on the petitioner, owing to personal enmity.

The petitioner highlights that a similar earlier application, filed as

Ext.P12 by the 4th respondent, had already been rejected, and no appeal

was preferred, and hence, a second application on the same issue is not

maintainable. It is submitted that Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act clearly

stipulates that personal information should not be disclosed unless it

serves a larger public interest, which is conspicuously absent in the

present case.

8. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4 th respondent, it is

contended that the RTI application filed on 12 th May 2015, sought W.P(C) 16142/17 5 2025:KER:34302

certified copies of various documents pertaining to the petitioner's

personal details submitted for his appointment. The information sought

was as follows:

1. Certified copy of the appointment order of Mr.K.Jainendrakumar, S/o. Krishnan Nair, residing at TC 17/1296-7, Sanjay Resorts, Thirumala P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-06, now working as the Chief Security Officer, in Technopark, Kazhakootam, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Certified copy of joining date, month & year of the said K. Jainendrakumar as the Chief Security Officer, in Technopark, Kazhakootam, Thiruvananthapuram.

3. Certified copy of the application form and bio-data submitted by the said K. Jainendrakumar before the Chief Executive Officer, Technopark, Kazhakootam, Thiruvananthapuram or the Governing Council, Technopark, Thiruvananthapuram or any other authority of Govt. of Kerala, for his appointment as the Chief Security Officer, in Technopark, Kazhakootam, Thiruvananthapuram.

4. Certified copy of the document for proving the said K. Jainendrakumar's date of birth and year, filed by the said K. Jainendrakumar before the Chief Executive Officer, Technopark, Kazhakootam, Thiruvananthapuram or the W.P(C) 16142/17 6 2025:KER:34302

Governing Council, Technopark, Thiruvananthapuram or any other authority of Govt. of Kerala, for his appointment as the Chief Security Officer, in Technopark, Kazhakootam.

5. Certified copy of contract if any, signed between the said K. Jainendrakumar and the Chief Executive Officer, Technopark, Kazhakootam, Thiruvananthapuram or the Governing Council, Technopark Thiruvananthapuram or any other authority of Govt. of Kerala, for his appointment as the Chief Security Officer, in Technopark, Kazhakootam, Thiruvananthapuram.

6. Is this the said K. Jainendrakumar, Chief Security Officer, Technopark, Kazhakootam, Thiruvananthapuram is a public servant or a Kerala Govt. servant? The answer may provide in the form of a certified copy.

9. In response to the RTI application, the respondent provided

information relating to items 1, 2, 5 and 6, which pertained to the

petitioner's appointment and related documents. However, the

respondent denied information concerning items 3 and 4, which related

to the petitioner's biodata and documents proving his date of birth, on

the ground that these were third-party information.

10. The respondent contends that the information sought by W.P(C) 16142/17 7 2025:KER:34302

the fourth respondent is not exempted from disclosure under Section 8

(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It is submitted that once the petitioner submits his

personal details, including his bio-data and date of birth, to an authority

and subsequently gets employment, this information has no more

secrecy. When this information is furnished, it enters the public domain

and any individual, like the respondent, has the right to collect this

information. It is also submitted that the documents or certificates

submitted by the employee to the recruitment authority, before his

employment in the public authority, become part of his service record

after appointment. Recruitment is a public activity, and the information

relating to the recruitment of public servants is in the public domain.

11. The respondent further argues that as the petitioner is a

public servant, his service-related information is not exempted from

disclosure under Section 8(j) of the RTI Act. The salary of government

officers is paid from the public exchequer, and citizens have the right to

access information regarding public servants, as they are performing

public duties. Therefore, the respondent submits that the petitioner's

privacy interest in this information is outweighed by the public interest

in its disclosure.

W.P(C) 16142/17 8 2025:KER:34302

12. The respondent also refutes the petitioner's contention that

the 4th respondent had previously applied for the same information and

did not appeal the rejection. The respondent asserts that the earlier

application sought different details, and even if the same information

had been sought before, there is no legal bar to filing a subsequent RTI

request. Each RTI application should be considered on its own merits,

and the petitioner's claim of previous rejection does not affect the

present request.

13. In reference to Ext.P1, the petitioner has cited the filing of

O.P(C) No. 26 of 2017 before this Court, challenging the order of the

Kerala State Information Commission, which was disposed of by

Ext.R4(d) judgment dated 25.01.2017. The petitioner also filed a Revision

Petition, R.P. No.201 of 2017, in relation to the same, which was disposed

of by Ext.R4(e) judgment dated 08.03.2017. The respondent submits that

none of the contentions raised in the writ petition are sustainable in

law. The petitioner has challenged the operation of Ext.P1 without

considering the legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the

requested information. The interim order staying the operation of

Ext.P1 was passed without notice to the respondent.

W.P(C) 16142/17 9 2025:KER:34302

14. Heard Sri. Liju V. Stephen, the learned counsel for the

petitioner, Sri. M. Ajay, the learned Standing Counsel for the State

Information Commission, Sri.D.Anil Kumar, the learned counsel

appearing for the 4th respondent, and Sri. Dheeraj A.S., the learned

Government Pleader.

15. The Public Information Officer rejected the application of

the 4th respondent, aggrieved by which the 4 th respondent had filed an

appeal in which the 3rd respondent Appellate Authority directed the 2 nd

respondent to furnish the information sought under Question Nos.1, 2, 5

and 6 and rejected the requests made as Question Nos.3 and 4. The 4th

respondent had filed a second appeal before the 1 st respondent, who

allowed the application without hearing the petitioner. Accordingly, the

petitioner filed W.P(C) No.41528/2016 wherein the order was set aside

through Ext.P10 judgment directing the 1st respondent to rehear the

appeal. The 1st respondent heard the parties and passed Ext.P11 order

on 29.04.2017 directing to furnish the answers sought to Question Nos 3

and 4 as well. Ext.P11 order is under challenge in the writ petition.

16. A reading of the questions in dispute, namely Question Nos.

3 and 4 show that they come within the realm of information that W.P(C) 16142/17 10 2025:KER:34302

relates to personal information. The relevant sections applicable in the

instant case are extracted hereunder:

"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,

(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."

17. Section 11 is also relevant, and the relevant portion,

namely Section 11(1), is extracted.

"11. Third party information.-- (1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party as has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact W.P(C) 16142/17 11 2025:KER:34302

that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:

Provided that, except in the case of trade or commercial

secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the

public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any

possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party."

18. A reading of Section 8(1)(j) clearly pre-supposes that there

is no bar in disclosing even a personal information which has no relation

to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted

invasion to the privacy of the individual unless the Public Information

Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public

interest justifies the disclosure of such information.

19. As held by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the decision in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme

Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal [(2020) 5 SCC 481],

Sections 8 and 11 must be read together. Thus, in every case where the W.P(C) 16142/17 12 2025:KER:34302

information requested is personal information within the operation of

Section 8(1)(j), the procedure of notice and objections under Section 11

must be complied with. These sections were construed to create a

substantive system of checks and balances, which seeks to balance the

right of the applicant to receive the information with the right of the

third party to prevent the disclosure of personal information by

permitting the latter to contest the proposed disclosure. The

Constitution Bench also held as under :

"34. Clauses in sub-section (1) to Section 8 can be divided into two categories: clauses (a), (b), (c), (f),

(g), (h) and (I), and clauses (d), (e) and (j). The latter clauses state that the prohibition specified would not apply or operate when the competent authority in clauses (d) and (e) and the PIO in clause (j) is satisfied that larger public interest warrants disclosure of such information. Therefore, clauses (d), (e) and (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act incorporate qualified prohibitions and are conditional and not absolute exemptions. Clauses (10, (b), (c), (f), (g), (h) and (I) do not have any such stipulation. Prohibitory stipulations in these clauses do not permit disclosure of information on satisfaction of the larger interest rule. These clauses, therefore, incorporate absolute W.P(C) 16142/17 13 2025:KER:34302

exclusions."

It was also held:

"58. Clause (j) to sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act specifically refers to invasion of the right to privacy of an individual and excludes from disclosure information that would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of such individual, unless the disclosure would satisfy the larger public interest test. This clause also draws a distinction in its treatment of personal information, whereby disclosure of such information is exempted if such information has no relation to public activity or interest. We would like to, however, clarify that in their treatment of this exemption, this Court has treated the word "information" which is disclosed would lead to invasion of privacy to mean personal information, as distinct from public information. This aspect has been dealt with in the succeeding paragraphs."

20. In the instant case, the appellate authority has not

considered even the impact of Section 8(1)(j) or Section 11 and had

directed the disclosure of the information sought solely on the basis that

the documents sought for are public documents to which the appellant

has a right to claim under the Right to Information Act. There is no W.P(C) 16142/17 14 2025:KER:34302

finding as to whether there was any overriding public interest. There is

also no basis for the finding that, since the information sought pertains

to "Public Documents", it has to be disclosed on application. There is no

definition of 'Public Documents' in the Act. Section 3 of the Act itself

stipulates that, subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall

have the right to information. "Information" in turn is defined as any

material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails,

opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts,

reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic

form and information relating to any private body which can be

accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in

force; Similarly, "record" is also defined as (i) any document,

manuscript and file; (ii) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of

a document; (iii) any reproduction of image or images embodied in such

microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and (iv) any other material

produced by a computer or any other device.

21. Merely because the documents are submitted to the public

authority for recruitment purposes or if the said documents can be

treated as public documents, will have to be considered in the backdrop W.P(C) 16142/17 15 2025:KER:34302

of the rigour of Section 8(1)(j) or Section 11 when it comes to disclosure

of personal information. None of these aspects relevant under the Act

were considered while passing the impugned order.

Under such circumstances, the order of the State Information

Authority cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is

quashed. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to rehear the

Second Appeal, with notice to the petitioner and the 4th respondent,

and pass orders afresh, strictly in terms of the Right to Information Act

and also taking note of the observations stated above. This shall be done

within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the

judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

                                         MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
                                              JUDGE
okb/
 W.P(C) 16142/17                 16               2025:KER:34302

                  APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16142/2017

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2016 IN CMA NO.42/2014 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT-5, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2015 BY THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL REGISTRATION, SOUTHERN RANGE.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN WPC NO. 41528/2016.

EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29.04.2017.

EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 03.04.2014.

EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE VIGILANCE COURT IN CRIMINAL MP.30/2016 DATED 04.03.2017.

 W.P(C) 16142/17                17               2025:KER:34302

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

EXT.R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 10.5.2016 IN RTI APPLICATION, FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN WP(C)

EXT.R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO RTI APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN WP(C) 16142/2017 DATED 17.6.2016 Ext.R4(c) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY R3 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, TECHNO PARK, KAZHAKOOTAM DATED 3.4.2014 Ext.R4(d) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 25.1.2017 IN OP(C) NO.26/2017 OF THIS COURT Ext.R4(e) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 8.3.2017 IN R.P. 201/2017 OF THIS COURT