Verdictum: Kerala: Wednesday, 27 May 2026.
The Court held that internal disciplinary records and note files forming part of departmental decision-making constitute personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The Kerala High Court has
held that internal file notings, deliberative materials and inter-departmental
opinions forming part of disciplinary proceedings are not automatically
disclosable under the Right to Information Act, 2005, merely because the information
is sought by the employee concerned.
The Court observed that disclosure of such records remains subject to the exemptions contemplated under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act and requires a balancing exercise between transparency, privacy, confidentiality and institutional integrity.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the Kerala Public Service Commission challenging an order of the Kerala State Information Commission directing disclosure of internal note files relating to disciplinary proceedings initiated against a former employee of the Commission.
A Bench of Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. observed: “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 by the 2nd respondent so as to justify disclosure of the said information. Ext.P5, however, proceeds on the assumption that the entire note file is mechanically disclosable without undertaking any balancing exercise between transparency, privacy, confidentiality and institutional integrity. Such an approach is legally unsustainable”.
The Bench further added: “Even assuming the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that file notings fall within the definition of ‘information' under the RTI Act is correct, the disclosure of such information would nevertheless remain subject to the exemptions and procedural safeguards contemplated under Sections 8 and 11 of the Act”.
Standing Counsel P.C. Sasidharan appeared for the petitioners. Standing Counsel M. Ajay appeared for the Kerala State Information Commission.
The dispute arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Kerala Public Service Commission against a Deputy Secretary, alleging irregularities in handling cash transactions and a shortage in the cash balance. Following the enquiry, punishment of barring increment and recovery of the loss amount with interest was imposed upon the employee.
Several years later, the employee sought copies of orders and file notings relating to the disciplinary proceedings and review petitions through an RTI application. The Public Information Officer rejected the request, holding that the information sought could not be disclosed under the RTI Act. The appellate authority affirmed the rejection.
The employee thereafter approached the Kerala State Information Commission, which directed the PSC to furnish all documents sought and further initiated proceedings under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act against the Public Information Officer. The Information Commission held that the exemptions under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) were inapplicable since the information related to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant herself.
Aggrieved thereby, the PSC approached the High Court challenging the legality of the order passed by the Information Commission.
Court’s Observation
The High Court extensively examined the scheme of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and reiterated that the provision must be interpreted purposively by balancing transparency with competing public interests such as privacy, confidentiality and efficient administration. The Court observed that the exemption provision is not merely a restriction on the right to information but part of the statutory mechanism intended to preserve institutional functioning and sensitive information.
The Court held that the expression “personal information” under Section 8(1)(j) includes not merely personal records but also professional and service-related records, including disciplinary proceedings, confidential assessments and employment-related materials.
Referring to Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner (2013), the Court observed: “Memos, show-cause notices, censure orders and service-related materials constitute personal information, disclosure of which ordinarily bears no nexus to public activity and would amount to unwarranted invasion of privacy unless justified by demonstrable larger public interest.”
The Court also relied upon Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) and reiterated that the RTI Act does not contemplate indiscriminate disclosure of every category of information held by a public authority. The Court observed that internal deliberative materials forming part of departmental decision-making stand on a fundamentally different footing from final orders communicated in discharge of statutory duties.
Examining the nature of file notings, the Court observed that although file notings may in appropriate cases fall within the definition of “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, disclosure of such information nevertheless remains subject to the exemptions under Sections 8 and 11 of the Act.
The Court also referred to the “doctrine of candour” recognised by the Constitution Bench in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal and observed:
“The doctrine of candour recognises the need for protecting a certain class of documents as they concern decision-making at the highest level of government, and only complete freedom from public gaze will enable freedom of expression and candour amongst government functionaries.”
The Bench further observed that internal note files and deliberative correspondence are treated distinctly from final decisions communicated to affected parties under the Manual of Office Procedure. The Court referred to provisions of the Manual stating that while the purport of final orders may be communicated, “the full text of the order should never be communicated, much less the whole correspondence embodied in the proceedings.”
The Court rejected the reasoning adopted by the Information Commission that the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) permitted disclosure because such information could not be denied to Parliament or the Legislature. After analysing several decisions, including Canara Bank v. Central Information Commission (2007), the Court held that the proviso cannot be interpreted in a manner that nullifies the substantive exemption protecting personal information.
The Court observed: “It is a settled principle of statutory interpretation that a proviso cannot be read in a way which nullifies the provision to which it is a proviso, unless such an intention is manifest.”
The High Court also noticed the amendments introduced through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, observing that the legislative trend unmistakably indicates a movement towards greater protection of personal and service-related information.
On the issue of proceedings under Section 20(1), the Court held that penal consequences can arise only upon a clear finding of malafide denial or deliberate obstruction. Since the stand adopted by the PSC was based on a plausible and legally sustainable interpretation of Section 8(1)(j), initiation of proceedings under Section 20(1) was held to be unsustainable.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court held that the direction issued by the Kerala State Information Commission directing indiscriminate disclosure of internal disciplinary file notings and initiating proceedings under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act was contrary to the statutory framework governing protection of personal information and confidentiality.
The Court concluded that the information sought related to internal disciplinary records constituting personal information, disclosure of which had no nexus to public activity or overriding public interest and would result in unwarranted invasion of privacy. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the order passed by the Kerala State Information Commission and allowed the writ petition.
Cause Title: State Public Information Officer & Ors. v. Kerala State Information Commission & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:34827)
Petitioners: Standing Counsel P.C. Sasidharan and Advocate Millu Dandapani.
The Court held that internal disciplinary records and note files forming part of departmental decision-making constitute personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The Court observed that disclosure of such records remains subject to the exemptions contemplated under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act and requires a balancing exercise between transparency, privacy, confidentiality and institutional integrity.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the Kerala Public Service Commission challenging an order of the Kerala State Information Commission directing disclosure of internal note files relating to disciplinary proceedings initiated against a former employee of the Commission.
A Bench of Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. observed: “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 by the 2nd respondent so as to justify disclosure of the said information. Ext.P5, however, proceeds on the assumption that the entire note file is mechanically disclosable without undertaking any balancing exercise between transparency, privacy, confidentiality and institutional integrity. Such an approach is legally unsustainable”.
The Bench further added: “Even assuming the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that file notings fall within the definition of ‘information' under the RTI Act is correct, the disclosure of such information would nevertheless remain subject to the exemptions and procedural safeguards contemplated under Sections 8 and 11 of the Act”.
Standing Counsel P.C. Sasidharan appeared for the petitioners. Standing Counsel M. Ajay appeared for the Kerala State Information Commission.
The dispute arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Kerala Public Service Commission against a Deputy Secretary, alleging irregularities in handling cash transactions and a shortage in the cash balance. Following the enquiry, punishment of barring increment and recovery of the loss amount with interest was imposed upon the employee.
Several years later, the employee sought copies of orders and file notings relating to the disciplinary proceedings and review petitions through an RTI application. The Public Information Officer rejected the request, holding that the information sought could not be disclosed under the RTI Act. The appellate authority affirmed the rejection.
The employee thereafter approached the Kerala State Information Commission, which directed the PSC to furnish all documents sought and further initiated proceedings under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act against the Public Information Officer. The Information Commission held that the exemptions under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) were inapplicable since the information related to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant herself.
Aggrieved thereby, the PSC approached the High Court challenging the legality of the order passed by the Information Commission.
Court’s Observation
The High Court extensively examined the scheme of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and reiterated that the provision must be interpreted purposively by balancing transparency with competing public interests such as privacy, confidentiality and efficient administration. The Court observed that the exemption provision is not merely a restriction on the right to information but part of the statutory mechanism intended to preserve institutional functioning and sensitive information.
The Court held that the expression “personal information” under Section 8(1)(j) includes not merely personal records but also professional and service-related records, including disciplinary proceedings, confidential assessments and employment-related materials.
Referring to Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner (2013), the Court observed: “Memos, show-cause notices, censure orders and service-related materials constitute personal information, disclosure of which ordinarily bears no nexus to public activity and would amount to unwarranted invasion of privacy unless justified by demonstrable larger public interest.”
The Court also relied upon Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) and reiterated that the RTI Act does not contemplate indiscriminate disclosure of every category of information held by a public authority. The Court observed that internal deliberative materials forming part of departmental decision-making stand on a fundamentally different footing from final orders communicated in discharge of statutory duties.
Examining the nature of file notings, the Court observed that although file notings may in appropriate cases fall within the definition of “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, disclosure of such information nevertheless remains subject to the exemptions under Sections 8 and 11 of the Act.
The Court also referred to the “doctrine of candour” recognised by the Constitution Bench in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal and observed:
“The doctrine of candour recognises the need for protecting a certain class of documents as they concern decision-making at the highest level of government, and only complete freedom from public gaze will enable freedom of expression and candour amongst government functionaries.”
The Bench further observed that internal note files and deliberative correspondence are treated distinctly from final decisions communicated to affected parties under the Manual of Office Procedure. The Court referred to provisions of the Manual stating that while the purport of final orders may be communicated, “the full text of the order should never be communicated, much less the whole correspondence embodied in the proceedings.”
The Court rejected the reasoning adopted by the Information Commission that the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) permitted disclosure because such information could not be denied to Parliament or the Legislature. After analysing several decisions, including Canara Bank v. Central Information Commission (2007), the Court held that the proviso cannot be interpreted in a manner that nullifies the substantive exemption protecting personal information.
The Court observed: “It is a settled principle of statutory interpretation that a proviso cannot be read in a way which nullifies the provision to which it is a proviso, unless such an intention is manifest.”
The High Court also noticed the amendments introduced through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, observing that the legislative trend unmistakably indicates a movement towards greater protection of personal and service-related information.
On the issue of proceedings under Section 20(1), the Court held that penal consequences can arise only upon a clear finding of malafide denial or deliberate obstruction. Since the stand adopted by the PSC was based on a plausible and legally sustainable interpretation of Section 8(1)(j), initiation of proceedings under Section 20(1) was held to be unsustainable.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court held that the direction issued by the Kerala State Information Commission directing indiscriminate disclosure of internal disciplinary file notings and initiating proceedings under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act was contrary to the statutory framework governing protection of personal information and confidentiality.
The Court concluded that the information sought related to internal disciplinary records constituting personal information, disclosure of which had no nexus to public activity or overriding public interest and would result in unwarranted invasion of privacy. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the order passed by the Kerala State Information Commission and allowed the writ petition.
Cause Title: State Public Information Officer & Ors. v. Kerala State Information Commission & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:34827)
Petitioners: Standing Counsel P.C. Sasidharan and Advocate Millu Dandapani.
.JPG)
.JPG)
