[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
State Public Information Officer vs E. Manoj Kumar on 14 January, 2026
2026:KER:2536
W.P(C) No.36950/2023 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 24TH POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 36950 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
1 STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
2 APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
BY ADV SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 E. MANOJ KUMAR,
DEPUTY SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
2 STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION,
KERALA, T.C. 26/298, PUNNEN ROAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
SRI.M.AJAY, SC-R2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.01.2026, THE COURT ON 14.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:2536
W.P(C) No.36950/2023 2
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
......................................................
W.P(C) No. 36950 of 2023
......................................................
Dated this the 14th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
The petitioners challenge Ext.P4 order dated 10.03.2023, passed by
the State Information Commission, whereby the Commission directed the
re-examination of the Right to Information (hereinafter referred to as the 'RTI
application') application submitted by the 1 st respondent and ordered the
disclosure of the information sought, free of cost, under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTI Act').
2. It is submitted that the 1st respondent, while working as Under
Secretary in the Department Test Wing of the Commission, filed Ext. P1 RTI
application on 24.12.2018 seeking information regarding various aspects of
the Public Service Commission, which contained 16 questions with sub-
questions. To the requisition, the Information Officer made him available
admissible information vide Ext. P2 reply dated 23.01.2019. The 1st
petitioner also addressed a letter on 30.01.2019 to the 1 st respondent
2026:KER:2536
informing that copies of 27 pages in relation to the questions 3,4,6, and 7
should be made available to him on payment of Rs.54/-, and the same was
given to him on 05.03.2019. Further, an appeal was preferred before the
appellate authority of the Commission, and the appellate authority
considered the appeal and passed Ext.P3 order dated 08.03.2019. Further,
aggrieved by the said order, the 1 st respondent approached the 2nd
respondent, and the 2nd respondent passed Ext. P4 order dated 10.03.2023
directing to re-examine the application and give a clear and accurate
answer, completely free of cost.
3. The questions for which the information was not furnished are
as follows:
Sl.No. Question Reply
1 Specify the order and provide The reply stated that it was not possible to
copies of portions of the file provide the requested order and copies of
related to disciplinary action the file as per RTI Act Section 8 (1) (j), as
taken against the petitioner. the confidential file SSI(I) 949/17 relating
to disciplinary proceedings also contained
remarks of other officers.
2 Provide a copy of the DE I The reply stated that it was not possible to
Section Attendance Register on provide the requested copy of the DE I
the date 31.10.2017. section Attendance Register on the date
2026:KER:2536
31.10.2017 as per RTI Act 8 (I)(j)(e).
3 Whether the third party, Sri. R The Reply stated that it was not possible to
Ramakrishnan subject to provide the details as per RTI Act 8(l)(j).
disciplinary action? What was
the content of the complaint
filed against him by Additional
Secretary Smt. Girijadevi. Give
details of the punishment given
to Sri. R Ramakrishnan, who
was the then Joint Secretary of
the DEI Section in 2017.
4 Give a copy of the order issued The reply stated that it was not possible to
by the Under Secretary provide a copy of the order since it is of a
(Appellant) in the file of urgent confidential nature.
importance regarding
compliance with the orders of
the Hon'ble Chairman.
5 Give the date on which the The Reply stated that it was not possible to
inquiry took place upon the provide the date on which the inquiry took
complaint against the Appellant place, upon the complaint against the
by the assistant, name of the petitioner by the assistant, the name of the
officer who conducted the officer who conducted the inquiry, the
inquiry, name and job title of names of the employees, and their job titles
the employees in the in the department examination section as
department. per RTI Act 8(l)(j).
6 Give a copy of the order dated There is no provision to provide copies of
28.11.2017 of the internal confidential statements recorded.
vigilance officer in the file
2026:KER:2536
SSI(I) 949/17. Give the
statement of the colleagues in
relation to the complaint of the
assistant against Sri. Manoj
Kumar E. Give the entire note
portion in the file SSI(I)
9494/17 from the first note to
the final order.
4. It is contended that the information sought constitutes personal
information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, having no
nexus with any public activity or public interest, and that disclosure of such
confidential records relating to disciplinary proceedings would result in an
unwarranted invasion of privacy and impair the fiduciary relationship
between the Commission and its officers. The petitioners assert that such
requests do not fall within the purview of "information" under the RTI Act,
which is intended to relate to the general functioning of the public
authority and, as defined under Section 2(j), does not extend to disclosure of
personal or private matters.
5. The petitioners place reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay [(2011) 8 SCC 497], Girish
Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission [(2013) 1 SCC
2026:KER:2536
212] and Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam [(2018) 11 SCC 426], to contend that the
right to information, though a valuable statutory right, is not absolute and
is subject to statutory exemptions intended to protect confidentiality,
fiduciary relationships and administrative efficiency. It is contended that
service records, disciplinary proceedings, complaints, inquiry reports, and
personal details of employees constitute personal information exempted
from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, unless a larger public
interest is clearly established. The petitioners also rely on the decision of
the Central Information Commission in Manoj Arya v. Central Public
Information Officer, Cabinet Secretariat (File No.CIC/SM/A/2013/000058
dated 26.06.2013), to contend that inquiry reports and complaint-related
records concerning third parties are personal in nature and cannot be
disclosed in the absence of an overriding public interest.
6. It is also submitted that the Central Information Commission
(Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005, mandates the procedure in deciding an
appeal, the commission may hear oral or written evidence on oath or on
affidavit from concerned or interested person; peruse or inspect documents,
public records or copies thereof; inquire through authorised officer further
details or facts; hear Central Public Information Officer, Central Assistant
2026:KER:2536
Public Information Officer, such Senior Officer who decided the first appeal,
such person against whom the complaint lies or the third party. The
petitioners contend that the impugned appellate order fails to satisfy the
mandate of Section 19 of the RTI Act and the prescribed appellate
procedure, since it neither records reasons nor arrives at any finding
regarding illegality or non-furnishing of information by the Public
Information Officer, and further that the appellate authority, instead of
adjudicating the appeal on merits by passing a reasoned order in open
proceedings as required under the Act, issued a direction wholly dehors the
statutory procedure.
7. In the present case, however, the impugned order merely issues
a direction to re-examine the matter and furnish the information free of
cost, without recording any finding as to illegality or infirmity in the orders
passed by the Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority. The
grievance before the Commission was confined to the remittance of Rs.54/-
towards copying charges, yet the Commission travelled beyond the scope of
the appeal and directed a re-examination of the entire RTI application,
which is ex facie unsustainable and illegal.
8. Heard Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned counsel appearing for the
2026:KER:2536
petitioners, and Sri.M.Ajay, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
State Information Commission.
9. On an analysis of the materials on record and the rival
contentions, it is evident that the RTI application filed by the 1 st respondent
was directed against the internal functioning of the Kerala Public Service
Commission and predominantly sought disclosure of records relating to
disciplinary and vigilance proceedings, including names and designations of
inquiry officers, statements of employees, attendance registers, internal
note files and records of third-party officers. The Public Information Officer,
after due consideration, furnished all admissible information and declined
disclosure of the remaining information by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the
Right to Information Act, holding that the information sought was personal,
confidential, related to service matters and third-party employees, and that
no larger public interest was demonstrated. The said view was
independently affirmed by the statutory Appellate Authority.
10. The State Information Commission, however, while
entertaining the second appeal, did not record any finding as to how the
orders of the Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority suffered
from illegality or irregularity, nor did it identify any specific information
2026:KER:2536
which was wrongly withheld. Instead, the Commission issued a blanket
direction to re-examine the entire RTI application and furnish information
free of cost. Such an approach is clearly contrary to the scheme of Section
19 of the RTI Act and the prescribed appeal procedure, which obligates the
appellate authority to adjudicate the appeal on merits, record reasons, and
arrive at definite findings. The impugned order thus suffers from non-
application of mind and procedural infirmity.
11. Further, the nature of information sought squarely falls within
the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (supra), Girish
Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) and C.S. Shyam (supra) makes it clear that
service records, disciplinary proceedings, inquiry reports, names of officers
involved in such proceedings and statements recorded therein constitute
personal information, the disclosure of which has no nexus with any public
activity or public interest, and disclosure would result in unwarranted
invasion of privacy unless a larger public interest is established. No such
larger public interest has been pleaded in this case.
12. It is also relevant to note that notice was issued by this Court to
2026:KER:2536
the 1st respondent as per the order dated 9.11.2023. Despite service of notice,
the complainant has chosen not to enter an appearance or contest the writ
petition. The pleadings and records placed by the petitioners, therefore,
remain uncontroverted. In the absence of any justification forthcoming
from the complainant, and in view of the settled legal position governing
disclosure of personal and confidential service-related information, the
impugned order of the State Information Commission, which is completely
bereft of any reason, cannot be sustained.
Therefore, Ext.P4 order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the State
Information Commission is quashed, and the writ petition is allowed.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
okb/
2026:KER:2536
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 36950 OF 2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED
24/12/2018 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23/1/2019
ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO EXT.P1
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8/3/2019
ISSUED BY THE KPSC TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/3/2023 OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
