Daily Excelsior: Jammu: Sunday, 13 July 2025.
In a significant ruling
that reinforces the privacy safeguards within the Right to Information (RTI)
framework, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has dismissed a Second
Appeal filed against J&K’s Home Department and made it unequivocally clear
that the RTI Act is not a tool to intrude into personal lives, especially where
no public interest is involved.
One Kuldeep Raj, a resident of district Jammu, filed an RTI application on February 26, 2024 before the PIO Home Department, J&K Government, requesting information regarding joining reports, selection orders, SROs, category certificates, transfer and promotion details of two police personnel.
With no response from the Public Information Officer (PIO), the applicant moved the First Appellate Authority, which eventually transferred the matter to the Police Headquarters (PHQ), J&K, in May last year.
Dissatisfied, the appellant then filed a Second Appeal before the CIC. During the final hearing held few days back, Central Information Commission upheld the PIO’s denial of information, stating: “The requested information qualifies as personal information of third parties and is therefore exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005”.
The CIC emphasized that no element of larger public interest was invoked by the appellant to justify overriding the privacy protections enshrined in the law. The Commission cited the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in case titled “Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Versus Subhash Chandra Agarwal”, which held that personal records, including service details, ACRs, financial disclosures and medical records, are not subject to public disclosure unless a compelling public interest is established.
“The RTI Act is not a surveillance tool and cannot be used to gather personal details of others without a strong and demonstrated public cause,” the CIC noted, adding “service records of police personnel fall under personal information”.
The ruling of the transparency watchdog of the country will go a long way in deterring those who are using the RTI Act to breach the privacy rights. Moreover, the decision sends a clear message that transparency under RTI Act has limits, especially when it risks violating individual privacy.
The Commission’s ruling reiterates that the RTI Act is designed to ensure accountability in governance-not to interfere into the personal and professional lives of others without lawful justification.
Meanwhile, underscoring the balance between transparency and protection of whistleblowers, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has upheld the decision of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) of Jammu & Kashmir to deny information sought under the RTI Act about complaints filed by a private individual, citing serious concerns related to safety and investigation.
The appeal was filed by an advocate, who sought details of complaints filed by one Fareed Ahmad Chouhan from Ganderbal, including the number of complaints, their nature, status and related documents. The application dated January 11, 2024, was turned down by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of ACB, Kashmir, on the grounds that disclosure of such information could endanger the life or physical safety of the complainant and might obstruct ongoing investigations or prosecutions.
These reasons were cited under Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, which exempt disclosure of sensitive information that may harm individual safety or compromise investigative processes.
The CIC, while hearing the Second Appeal, ruled that ACB J&K had provided a valid and appropriate reply, justifying the denial based on exemptions under the law. “The safety of individuals and integrity of law enforcement processes must be protected over disclosure of information where no overriding public interest is demonstrated”, the Commission said.
“Disclosing such information may expose the whistleblower to victimization or harassment and could derail sensitive investigations,” the Commission observed, adding “the appellant has failed to establish any larger public interest that would warrant overriding the exemptions provided under the Act”.
One Kuldeep Raj, a resident of district Jammu, filed an RTI application on February 26, 2024 before the PIO Home Department, J&K Government, requesting information regarding joining reports, selection orders, SROs, category certificates, transfer and promotion details of two police personnel.
With no response from the Public Information Officer (PIO), the applicant moved the First Appellate Authority, which eventually transferred the matter to the Police Headquarters (PHQ), J&K, in May last year.
Dissatisfied, the appellant then filed a Second Appeal before the CIC. During the final hearing held few days back, Central Information Commission upheld the PIO’s denial of information, stating: “The requested information qualifies as personal information of third parties and is therefore exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005”.
The CIC emphasized that no element of larger public interest was invoked by the appellant to justify overriding the privacy protections enshrined in the law. The Commission cited the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in case titled “Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Versus Subhash Chandra Agarwal”, which held that personal records, including service details, ACRs, financial disclosures and medical records, are not subject to public disclosure unless a compelling public interest is established.
“The RTI Act is not a surveillance tool and cannot be used to gather personal details of others without a strong and demonstrated public cause,” the CIC noted, adding “service records of police personnel fall under personal information”.
The ruling of the transparency watchdog of the country will go a long way in deterring those who are using the RTI Act to breach the privacy rights. Moreover, the decision sends a clear message that transparency under RTI Act has limits, especially when it risks violating individual privacy.
The Commission’s ruling reiterates that the RTI Act is designed to ensure accountability in governance-not to interfere into the personal and professional lives of others without lawful justification.
Meanwhile, underscoring the balance between transparency and protection of whistleblowers, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has upheld the decision of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) of Jammu & Kashmir to deny information sought under the RTI Act about complaints filed by a private individual, citing serious concerns related to safety and investigation.
The appeal was filed by an advocate, who sought details of complaints filed by one Fareed Ahmad Chouhan from Ganderbal, including the number of complaints, their nature, status and related documents. The application dated January 11, 2024, was turned down by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of ACB, Kashmir, on the grounds that disclosure of such information could endanger the life or physical safety of the complainant and might obstruct ongoing investigations or prosecutions.
These reasons were cited under Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, which exempt disclosure of sensitive information that may harm individual safety or compromise investigative processes.
The CIC, while hearing the Second Appeal, ruled that ACB J&K had provided a valid and appropriate reply, justifying the denial based on exemptions under the law. “The safety of individuals and integrity of law enforcement processes must be protected over disclosure of information where no overriding public interest is demonstrated”, the Commission said.
“Disclosing such information may expose the whistleblower to victimization or harassment and could derail sensitive investigations,” the Commission observed, adding “the appellant has failed to establish any larger public interest that would warrant overriding the exemptions provided under the Act”.
.JPG)
.JPG)
