Public Servant's Financial Affairs Exempted From Disclosure Under RTI, Unless Justified By Overriding Public Interest: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court dismissed an RTI applicant's plea seeking disclosure of assets and liability statement of a public servant, former Deputy Controller of State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), observing that the information sought was personal unconnected to any public interest hence protected under Section 8(1) (j) RTI Act. 

It observed that official acts, decisions, utilization of public resources, and matters directly connected with public administration would stand on a different footing.

"However, information relating to personal assets, liabilities, financial affairs, income particulars, tax records, family matters, medical records, and similar personal details would ordinarily fall within the ambit of personal information protected under Clause (j) of Sub Section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act, unless disclosure is justified by an overriding public interest," Justice Surah Govindaraj said. 

Therefore, there exists a clear difference between information relating to the discharge of public duties and information relating to the private affairs of a public servant, the court said.

Rejecting the petitioner's contention that since the officer was holding a public office and was required to disclose his assets and liabilities under the applicable service rules, the information sought assumes the character of public information and cannot be denied by invoking Section 8(1) (j) the court said:

"This contention cannot be accepted in the broad manner in which it is canvassed. The mere fact that a person is a public servant does not ipso facto render every piece of information concerning him amenable to disclosure under the RTI Act. If such an interpretation were to be accepted, the protection expressly afforded under Clause (j) of Sub Section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act would stand substantially diluted in respect of an entire class of individuals merely because they happen to hold public office.
Such an interpretation would be contrary to the legislative intent underlying Clause (j) of Sub Section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act, which recognises that public servants do not cease to possess privacy rights merely by reason of their employment in public service"

The single judge bench, refusing to allow the request for the financial statements between 1997-2005 in relation to an allegedly fraudulent sale deed obtained by the former public servant for the petitioner's land, underscored that personal information cannot be converted into public information under the RTI Act, 2005.

“…Mere allegations, however serious, cannot by themselves convert personal information into public information. If such a proposition were to be accepted, the protection afforded under Clause (8(1)) (j)… could be rendered illusory by the simple expedient of making allegations against an individual and thereafter seeking disclosure of his personal records…” the bench observed.

The petitioner, S. Savithramma, earlier approached the KSRTC Public Information Officer seeking the asset and liability statements of a public servant who served as Deputy Controller between 1990 and 2002. The petitioner had approached the PIO on the ground that the respondent had fraudulently obtained the sale deed from the petitioner and there being civil suits which were pending, these documents were required by the petitioner. 

The PIO had rejected the said application citing Section 8(1)(j) of the Act since the information sought for was personal, with no bearing on any public activity or public interest. In appeal, the State's Information Commission also agreed with the PIO's order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the High Court stating that the financial statements of the public servant would reveal the suspicious transaction.

Larger Public Interest Exception

Elucidating further on the distinction between private information and the exception applicable to its non-disclosure, the court concluded that the personal information sought to establish fraud in a property transaction does not indicate that it is in pursuance of 'a larger public interest' [exception in Section 8(1)(j)], no matter what the allegations levelled against the public servant involved in the said transaction is.

The Court emphasized that the 'larger public interest' contemplated under the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) must be distinguished from a private interest

“…. The expression 'larger public interest' is of considerable significance. The legislature has consciously not used the expression 'interest of the applicant'. Disclosure under the proviso is justified only where the public interest sought to be served is of such significance as to outweigh the privacy interests protected by the exemption provision,” the court explained.

Such public interest may arise where disclosure is necessary to expose corruption, abuse of public office, misuse of public funds, acquisition of disproportionate assets, or systemic irregularities affecting governance, the court said. In the present case, the petitioner had failed to place any material to establish that the information was required for any such purpose.

The Court further held that the litigant has civil or criminal remedies available to challenge the alleged fraudulent sale deed. However, the RTI Act cannot be employed as a mechanism to obtain protected personal information merely for the purpose of advancing a private claim.

“…The right to privacy is now recognised as a constitutionally protected right. Clause (j)… represents a statutory manifestation of that protection in the context of access to information. Therefore, before directing disclosure of personal information, the authority concerned must be satisfied that the public interest sought to be served is of such magnitude as to outweigh the privacy interests of the individual concerned. No such circumstances have been demonstrated in the present case,” the Court concluded.

Personal Information Submitted To Employer

Before the High Court, the petitioner had argued that the financial statements were already submitted to the government employer as per the applicable service rules, which strips off the personal nature of the information sought for. However, the court disagreed with such an interpretation and noted as follows:

“…. A distinction has to be maintained between information furnished to a competent authority for administrative, vigilance, regulatory, or service-related purposes and information which is liable to be disclosed to the public at large….The purpose for which such information is collected cannot automatically determine the scope of its disclosure to third parties…” the order stated.

The Court cautioned that if the mere filing of an asset declaration before a public authority is sufficient to convert the private information as publicly accessible, “the protection afforded by Clause… would stand substantially diluted”.

“….Such an interpretation would lead to the anomalous consequence that personal financial information would lose its protected character solely because it has been furnished to a public authority in compliance with a statutory or service obligation”, the court clarified further.

The High Court, hence, affirmed the rejection orders of the PIO and the Karnataka Information Commission and dismissed the writ petition for being devoid of merits.

Case Title: Smt. S. Savithramma v. The Karnataka Information Commission & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 21831 of 2025 (GM-RES)

Click Here To Read/ Download Order