Recently, the Bombay High Court dealt with a significant question under the Right to Information Act, 2005 whether a third party’s service record can be disclosed without following due process and assessing privacy concerns.
The case arose when a private individual sought information regarding the service record of a police officer under the RTI Act. The Information Officer and First Appellate Authority rejected the request. However, the State Information Commission, in second appeal, directed disclosure of the information.
Aggrieved, the officer approached the High Court challenging this direction, arguing that the information sought was personal in nature and exempt from disclosure.
The Petitioner contended that the requested information pertained to his service record, which falls within “personal information” under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, and cannot be disclosed without establishing a larger public interest. It was further argued that no opportunity of hearing was given to him as a third party, violating Section 11 of the Act. On the other hand, the Respondent argued that the information was necessary to verify the genuineness of the petitioner’s caste certificate used for securing public employment, asserting that the issue involved public interest.
The Court emphasised that service records of an employee constitute personal information and are generally exempt from disclosure unless a larger public interest is demonstrated. It observed that disclosure of such information “has been clearly exempted from the purview of disclosure” under Section 8(1)(j), unless justified by public interest. Further, the Court strongly noted the procedural lapse, stating that when third-party information is involved, compliance with Section 11 is mandatory. The authority must issue notice and provide an opportunity of hearing to the concerned individual.
Relying on precedent, the Court reiterated that “any order affecting the rights of a third party cannot be passed without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard.”
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the State Information Commission. It held that the direction to disclose the petitioner’s service record was contrary to both the privacy exemption under Section 8(1)(j) and the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 11 of the RTI Act.
Case Title: Narsing Ganpatrao Ankushkar v. Balaji Pandharinath Thorat & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 4075 of 2015
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abasaheb D. Shinde
Advocate for the Petitioner/Appellant: Mr. Aditya G. Chavan (h/f Mr. Khandare N.B.)
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Suryawanshi G.G. and Adv. G.A. Kulkarni, AGP (for State)
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
