Service Records Are Personal Information, Exempted From Disclosure Under RTI Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that a service record constitutes personal information exempted from disclosure under the Right to Information Act. The Court observed that such information cannot be directed to be disclosed unless the authority records satisfaction that a larger public interest warrants such disclosure.

Justice Abasaheb D. Shinde was hearing a writ petition filed challenging the order passed by the State Information Commission directing disclosure of the service record of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The respondent had sought information under the RTI Act regarding the petitioner's service record, including details relating to his employment. The application was rejected by the Information Officer as well as the First Appellate Authority. However, in the second appeal, the State Information Commission allowed the request and directed disclosure of the information.

The petitioner contended that the information sought pertained to his personal service record and that the respondent had no concern with such information. It was further submitted that the Information Commission failed to consider the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts disclosure of personal information, and also did not comply with the requirement of giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as a third party under Section 11. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the information was necessary to verify whether the petitioner had secured employment on the basis of a valid caste certificate and that it involved public interest.

The Court examined the statutory scheme of the RTI Act and noted that Section 8(1)(j) expressly exempts disclosure of personal information unless justified by public interest. The Court further noted that before directing disclosure of third-party information, the authority is required to comply with Section 11 of the RTI Act by issuing notice and granting an opportunity of hearing to the concerned person. It found that in the present case, no such opportunity was given to the petitioner before directing disclosure.

The Court held that the impugned order was contrary to the provisions of Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of the RTI Act, as it directed disclosure of personal information without recording satisfaction of public interest and without granting a hearing to the affected party.

“… the impugned order passed by the second Appellate Authority is not only contrary to the provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) as the information relates to service record of the petitioner i.e. his personal information and has been clearly exempted from the purview of disclosure, but also contrary to the provisions of Section 11 of the RTI Act…,” the Court observed.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the State Information Commission directing disclosure of the petitioner's service record.

Case Title: Narsing Ganpatrao Ankushkar vs. Balaji Pandharinath Thorat & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 4075 of 2015]

Case Title: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 201

Click Here To Read/Download Order