Verdictum: Bhopal: Wednesday, 16 April 2025.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed an Order passed by the CIC that refused to disclose information pertaining appointments and qualifications of public servants under the RTI Act.
The Madhya Pradesh High
Court held that disclosure of qualification or appointment to a public office
or educational certificates, including experience certificates, is not private
information protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, but is within the
public domain.
The Court quashed an Order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) that refused to disclose certain information as it was hit by Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The Court held that the information, pertaining to appointments and qualifications, should have been provided to the Petitioner.
A Single Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal held that “educational, technical qualification and experience certificate of selected candidates, file noting, etc. cannot be said to be hit by provisions contained in Section 8(1)(j) and that being an information on a public activity which is selection for the post, cannot be said to be exempt from the provisions contained in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.”
The Petitioner appeared in person, while Advocate Dhananjay Kumar Mishra represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The CIC had denied the Petitioner's request for information, citing Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of the RTI Act, which relate to exemptions for personal information and third-party information.
The Petitioner had sought information concerning appointments made by the Indian Institute of Forest Management, including salary details, enquiry reports related to an allegedly illegal appointment, relieving letters, recovery details, and qualification and experience documents of appointees.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court noted that the CIC in its previous Orders had held that “disclosure of qualification or appointment to a public office or educational certificates which in the opinion of this Court will also include experience certificates cannot be said to be a private information and that information is always within the public domain.”
“Thus, perusal of Section 11 of the RTI Act reveals that information which is treated to be confidential by that third party, notice is required to be issued, but proviso below sub-Section (1) of Section 11 provides that except in case of trade and commercial secret protected by law, disclosure ,may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance and possible harm or injury,” the Bench clarified.
The Court held that the information sought by the Petitioner, including educational and experience certificates, did not fall under the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Therefore, the stand of CIC in the present case vide impugned order dated 24.06.2024 (Annexure P-5) is contrary to the precedents of the Chief Information Commissioner's Office, it appears to be an attempt for nondisclosure of information, appears to be an attempt to shield unscrupulous and ineligible persons, therefore, impugned order is quashed.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Jayshree Dubey v. The Central Information Commissioner (Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-JBP:16206)
(Click here toread/download the Order)
The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed an Order passed by the CIC that refused to disclose information pertaining appointments and qualifications of public servants under the RTI Act.
The Court quashed an Order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) that refused to disclose certain information as it was hit by Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The Court held that the information, pertaining to appointments and qualifications, should have been provided to the Petitioner.
A Single Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal held that “educational, technical qualification and experience certificate of selected candidates, file noting, etc. cannot be said to be hit by provisions contained in Section 8(1)(j) and that being an information on a public activity which is selection for the post, cannot be said to be exempt from the provisions contained in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.”
The Petitioner appeared in person, while Advocate Dhananjay Kumar Mishra represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The CIC had denied the Petitioner's request for information, citing Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of the RTI Act, which relate to exemptions for personal information and third-party information.
The Petitioner had sought information concerning appointments made by the Indian Institute of Forest Management, including salary details, enquiry reports related to an allegedly illegal appointment, relieving letters, recovery details, and qualification and experience documents of appointees.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court noted that the CIC in its previous Orders had held that “disclosure of qualification or appointment to a public office or educational certificates which in the opinion of this Court will also include experience certificates cannot be said to be a private information and that information is always within the public domain.”
“Thus, perusal of Section 11 of the RTI Act reveals that information which is treated to be confidential by that third party, notice is required to be issued, but proviso below sub-Section (1) of Section 11 provides that except in case of trade and commercial secret protected by law, disclosure ,may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance and possible harm or injury,” the Bench clarified.
The Court held that the information sought by the Petitioner, including educational and experience certificates, did not fall under the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Therefore, the stand of CIC in the present case vide impugned order dated 24.06.2024 (Annexure P-5) is contrary to the precedents of the Chief Information Commissioner's Office, it appears to be an attempt for nondisclosure of information, appears to be an attempt to shield unscrupulous and ineligible persons, therefore, impugned order is quashed.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Jayshree Dubey v. The Central Information Commissioner (Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-JBP:16206)
(Click here toread/download the Order)
.JPG)
.JPG)
