[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
S.Arul Antony vs The State Information Commissioner on 9 March, 2026
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S. M. Subramaniam
2026:MHC:963
WA No. 1431 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER
WA No. 1431 of 2023
and
CMP No. 13931 of 2023
S.Arul Antony
Member (college Education )Cum The Public
Information Officer, Teachers Recruitment Board,
MGR Centenary Building, DPI campus, College
Road, Chennai- 600 006.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. The State Information commissioner
Tamil Nadu Information Commission,
No.19, Government Farm Village, Nandanam,
Chennai- 600 038.
2. P.Ramar
S/o.Pichaimuthu,
Door No.4/ 144, Devendrakula Vellalar Nagar,
Anayampatti Post, Gangavalli Taluk,
Salem District- 636 105.
..Respondent(s)
To set aside the order passed in WP.No. 23494 of 2022 dated
05.09.2022.
For Appellant(s): Mr.R.Neelakandan,
Additional aDvcoate General
assisted by
Mr.C.Kathiravan,
Standing Counsel
__________
Page1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 05:01:16 pm )
For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Vigneshwaran
for R1
Mr.J.Jayamalan for R2
Judgment
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
The Writ Order dated 05.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.23494 of 2022 is
under challenge in the present intra-court Appeal preferred under Class 15 of
the Letters Patent.
2. The 2nd respondent is the Information seeker under the RTI Act. His
application seeking information about the persons who obtained PSTM
Certificate was initially rejected by the Public Information officer. The 2 nd
respondent preferred an appeal before the State Commissioner. The State
Commission in its order dated 26.11.2021 directed the Public Information
Officer to provide copy of the PSTM Certificate as such sought for by the
Information seeker/ 2nd respondent. The reasons stated by the State
Commission is that the certificate issued by the competent authority holding
that the person studied under tamil medium is to be construed as public
document and not protected under the provisions of the Right to Information
Act, 2005. Challenging the said order passed by the State information
Commission, the Public Information Officer, in his personal capacity, had filed
a writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed affirming the findings made by
the State Commission.
3. Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing
on behalf of the appellant would mainly contend that PSTM Certificate was
__________
Page2 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 05:01:16 pm )
issued by an authority and therefore, it is a personal information. Thus, the
certificate is protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act.
4. Plain reading of the said provision would show that the 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.
5. PSTM certificate cannot be construed as a private document. Once a
certificate has been issued and submitted in a recruitment process, it
becomes a public document, and not protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the
Act, as rightly held by the State Information Commissioner and affirmed by
the writ court.
6. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that a person
ineligible and not selected under the PSTM quota, filed an application under
the RTI Act seeking information.
7. Be that as it may, this Court need not go into the other merits of the
case. However, the said document as such sought for by the 2 nd respondent/
information seeker is not a protected document under section 8(1)(j)of the Act.
That apart, the language employed under section 8(1)(j), in unequivocal terms
reiterates that if any such information relates to public activity then it is not
protected. In the present case, the PSTM certificate is produced for the
__________
Page3 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 05:01:16 pm )
purpose of selection and that being the factum, the said provision would have
no application and thus, there is no impediment for providing a copy of the
certificate or the information about the candidate to the information seeker as
such sought for. That apart, information regarding the correctness of PSTM
certificate or related information would not fall under the definition of personal
information.
8. For all these reasons, this Court is inclined to affirm the order of the
writ court. Consequently, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. The
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (K.S.,J.)
09-03-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
vsi
To
1. The State Information Commissioner,
Tamil Nadu Information Commission,
No.19, Government Farm Village, Nandanam,
Chennai- 600 038.
2. P.Ramar
S/o.Pichaimuthu, Door NO.4/ 144,
Devendrakula Vellalar Nagar, Anayampatti
Post, Gangavalli Taluk,
Salem District- 636 105.
__________
Page4 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 05:01:16 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.
AND
K.SURENDER J.
vsi
09-03-2026
__________
Page5 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 05:01:16 pm )
