M A I N   N E W S

ACRs, salaries & assets of public servants come under RTI, rules SC
The rider: Petitioner can’t claim such details as a matter of right
R Sedhuraman
Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, October 7
The Supreme Court has ruled that even personal particulars of public servants relating to salary, annual confidential report (ACR), assets and departmental action could be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, if the competent authority was convinced that this would be in public interest.

“Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) or the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed, but the RTI petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right,” a Bench comprising Justices KS Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra held.

The Bench acknowledged that performance of an employee/officer in an organisation was primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects were governed by the service rules which fell under “personal information”.

Such information had no relationship to any public activity or public interest and the disclosure of the details “would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual”, the Bench noted.

Further, details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns “are personal information which stand exempted from disclosure” under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Similarly, copies of all memos issued to an employee, show cause notices and orders of censure or punishment would also qualify as personal information, the Bench clarified.

However, these particulars could be ordered to be disclosed by the CPIO, the SPIO or the Appellate Authority in a “larger public interest”, the Supreme Court ruled.

The Bench made the clarifications while dismissing a petition filed by one GP Deshpande seeking details of the service and other personal details of a Regional Provident Fund officer at Nagpur, who was facing a criminal case. The petitioner had failed to prove that this would be in public interest, the Bench held on October 3.