No Unrestricted 'Right To Information' Merely Because Legislature May Seek It; DPDP Act Strengthens Privacy Framework: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently held that there is no unrestricted right under the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act to seek every information that would have been supplied to the legislature.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 Kerala High Court recently held that there is no unrestricted right under the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act to seek every information that would have been supplied to the legislature.
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 by the KPSC 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.
Petitioners' Contentions
The KPSC contended that all materials relied upon for initiating disciplinary proceedings and imposing punishment had already been furnished to the employee and accepted by her. What was now sought under the RTI Act was the internal note file relating to a later review petition, which could not be claimed as a matter of right.
It argued that disclosure of confidential internal records concerning disciplinary action would impair the fiduciary relationship between the Commission and its officers and adversely affect institutional functioning. The petitioners further contended that the information sought did not meaningfully relate to public interest but was a purely personal matter.
The Commission relied on CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay to argue that indiscriminate disclosure demands under the RTI Act, disconnected from transparency or anti-corruption objectives, could undermine administrative efficiency and burden public authorities.
On the SIC's direction initiating action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, the petitioners argued that penal proceedings require a finding of mala fide denial or deliberate obstruction, and no such finding existed. Their refusal, they said, was based on a bona fide legal interpretation supported by precedent treating service and disciplinary records as personal information exempt from disclosure.
Employee's Contentions
The former employee contended that the disciplinary proceedings against her were unwarranted and amounted to victimisation, especially when she was due for promotion.
She claimed that the then Chairman and Secretary of the KPSC had exonerated her in 2014, but despite repeated requests, copies of the exoneration order, enquiry report, and monitoring committee report were not furnished, forcing her to invoke the RTI Act.
Her case was that the requested information pertained exclusively to proceedings concerning her own service record and disciplinary case, and therefore disclosure could not be denied by invoking exemptions under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j). Since she herself was the person affected by the proceedings, no question of invasion of privacy arose.
She further alleged that the writ petition was filed belatedly only to prolong harassment and victimisation, and sought dismissal of the petition with costs.
State Information Commission's Stand
The SIC defended its order by contending that file notings fall squarely within the RTI Act's definition of “information,” which includes records, documents, files, opinions, and advice.
The Commission also relied on the proviso to Section 8(1)(j), which then stated that information that could not be denied to Parliament or the State Legislature could not be denied to any person.
Amicus Curiae's Submissions
The Court appointed Advocate Surya Binoy as amicus curiae for assistance on the legal issues. The amicus pointed out that Section 8(1)(j) had been amended by the DPDP Act, with effect from November 30, 2025, broadening the exemption for personal information. Although the amendment did not directly apply to the present dispute, it reflected a legislative shift toward stronger privacy protection.
The amicus submitted that the issue required balancing transparency, privacy, confidentiality, and institutional functioning, rather than adopting a rigid reading of the RTI Act.
Referring to judicial precedents, the amicus highlighted that while some courts had permitted disclosure of official file notings in appropriate circumstances, other decisions had recognised the need to protect internal deliberative records, particularly in disciplinary matters, to preserve institutional functioning and candour in decision-making.
On the proviso to Section 8(1)(j), the amicus noted conflicting judicial interpretations, but pointed out that the Supreme Court in C.S. Shyam had clarified that the proviso does not override privacy protections for service-related personal information in the absence of larger public interest.
Court's findings
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