No Unrestricted 'Right To Information' Merely Because Legislature May Seek It; DPDP Act Strengthens Privacy Framework: Kerala High Court

According to Section 8(1)(j), there is no obligation to disclose information relating to personal information that has no relation to public activity or interest or would invade the privacy of an individual unless there is larger public interest justifying the disclosure. The proviso states that information that cannot be denied to the legislature shall not be denied to an applicant.

Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. further clarified that with the introduction of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, the disclosure framework founded upon balancing of public interest is also materially curtailed, and had the effect of doing away with the above proviso.

The Court was considering a writ petition filed by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC), its State Public Information Officer, and the Appellate Authority challenging an order of the Kerala State Information Commission mandating disclosure of information, including file note, in relation to disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee of the KPSC.

The employee had applied under the RTI Act seeking information relating to her disciplinary action but the Information Officer had rejected her request. Her appeal before the Appellate Authority was also rejected, prompting her to file an appeal before the State Information Commission.

The State Commission directed the PSC to disclose all documents sought for without referring to any specific document and further, ordered proceedings under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. This provision empowers the State Information Commissions to impose penalties on the State Public Information Officers in certain situations, including refusal to receive an application without any reasonable cause.

The finding of the Commission was that since the information sought related to the applicant herself and she would have been entitled to receive them in the course of the disciplinary proceedings.

It was also found that the privacy exemption under Section 8(1)(j) would not be applicable in the present case since the information pertains to the applicant. Further, reliance was also placed on proviso to Section 8(1)(j).

This order was challenged before the High Court alleging that the information sought includes the file note, which contained opinions and noting of various officers of the KPSC, and the same was not a public document. They told that all materials relied on for initiating disciplinary proceedings and imposing punishments were supplied to the applicant.

The applicant also appeared before the Court and submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her on an alleged shortage in cash handling from 2004 to 2006 and the same was subsequently remitted by her with interest. She further told that she was fully exonerated in the case in 2014 and even though she requested for the copies of the exoneration order, the same were not disclosed, forcing her to make an application under RTI Act.

After hearing the parties and the amicus curiae, the Court examined Section 8(1)(j), the Preamble to the RTI Act and various case laws. It then set aside the State Commission's order and opined:

“the proviso of Section 8(1)(j) does not confer an unrestricted right to seek every information, nor does it mandate disclosure in all cases, as such an interpretation would render the protections and exemptions contemplated under Sections 8 and 11 of the Act otiose… The information sought pertains to internal disciplinary records constituting personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest, and would result in an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Further, no larger or overriding public interest has either been pleaded or established…so as to justify disclosure of the said information.”

It was also added that the legislature's power to call for information are regulated as well by the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha (LS Rules of Procedure) and the Directions issued by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha.

The Court also observed that with the DPDP Act, the afore proviso has been omitted, with prospective effect. However, it was clarified that the amendment introduced by the DPDP Act does not govern the present case:

“The amendment introduced through the DPDP Act, 2023, which came into force on 30.11.2025, Section 8(1)(j) now stands substantially widened so as to exempt “information which relates to personal information”, thereby materially curtailing the earlier disclosure framework founded upon the balancing of public interest. Though the said amendment operates prospectively and does not directly govern the present dispute, the legislative development unmistakably demonstrates the statutory shift towards greater protection of personal and service-related information. Thus, even independently of its prospective operation, the very basis upon which expansive arguments founded on the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) were earlier advanced stands substantially diluted under the amended provision as well.”

With respect to the penalty imposed, the Court opined that the same can arise only upon a clear finding of malafide denial, unreasonable refusal or deliberate obstruction.

Thus, the Court allowed the plea and set aside the State Information Commission's order directing disclosure and imposing penalty.

Case No: WP(C) No. 493 of 2019

Case Title: The State Public Information Officer and Ors. v. The Kerala State Information Commission and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 287

Counsel for the petitioners: Millu Dandapani, P.C. Sasidharan - Standing Counsel - KPSC

Counsel for the respondents: Aype Joseph, L.T. Leju Kumar, M. Ajay

Amicus Curiae: Surya Binoy

Click to Read/Download Judgment