Madras High Court clarifies scope of public servant’s service record disclosure under RTI Act [Read Order]

Madras: The Madras High Court has delivered a significant judgment clarifying that the service records of public servants cannot be completely exempted from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, while establishing guidelines for what information can and cannot be shielded from public scrutiny.

Justice C.V. Karthikeyan addressed the case after petitioners M. Tamilselvan and T. Sangeetha sought information about a public servant’s service details, which was denied by authorities citing Section 8(j) of the RTI Act.

Madras High Court Ruling on Public Servants’ Service Records Under RTI

The court made important observations about transparency in public service, stating: “Once an individual accepts to join public service, he must accept that he lives in public glare and cannot avoid the general public from seeking details, at least so far as their service is concerned.”

Regarding disclosable information, the court noted: “Such information which could not harm the career of the public servant could also be disclosed, like the date of his joining the service, the date of promotion, if any, and the nature of work discharged by him.”

Transparency vs Privacy: Key Highlights of Madras HC’s RTI Judgment

The court specifically addressed the disclosure of assets and liabilities: “No doubt, it is true that the assets and liabilities of a public servant will have to be necessarily disclosed and cannot be shielded from public scrutiny, but there should be reasonable restrictions on the same.”

However, the court also emphasized the need to protect certain information: “There is certain information which necessarily has to be protected from being disclosed. Therefore, the materials available in the service register would have to be scrutinized, and the reason why those materials are required must also be verified and examined by the officials concerned.”

The court set aside the blanket denial order and directed the authorities to reconsider the RTI application within two months, emphasizing that any denial of information must be supported by proper reasoning.

Mr. R. Thirumoorthy appeared for the petitioners. Mr. C. Vigneswaran, Senior Counsel, appeared for the first respondent. Mr. S.J. Mohamed Sathik, Government Advocate, appeared for respondents 2 and 3. Mr. J. Ramkumar appeared for the fourth respondent.

Case title: M. Tamilselvan & Anr vs The District Collector & Ors

[Read Order]