Law Beat: Bhopal: Saturday, 02 May 2026.
Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that employees are entitled to access their own ACRs under RTI, rejecting privacy-based objections.
The Madhya Pradesh High
Court recently reiterated that information relating to an employee’s Annual
Confidential Reports (ACRs) cannot be withheld under the Right to Information
Act merely by invoking privacy concerns, holding that such records must ordinarily
be disclosed to the concerned individual in the interest of fairness and
transparency in public administration.
Deciding a writ petition filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, Justice Deepak Khot upheld an order of the State Information Commission directing disclosure of information sought by an applicant regarding his own ACRs. The State had challenged the Commission’s order dated December 1, 2009, contending that the information sought fell within the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which protects personal information from disclosure unless larger public interest justifies it.
The State argued that both the Public Information Officer and the appellate authority had rightly rejected the application, and that the Information Commission failed to record a finding of “objective satisfaction” showing that public interest outweighed privacy concerns, as required by the Supreme Court in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi.
However, the High Court found no merit in the State’s contention. It noted that the applicant had sought access to his own ACRs, and that the legal position on disclosure of such records had been clearly settled by the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India. Relying on this precedent, the Court emphasized that transparency in service matters is a necessary facet of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Quoting from Dev Dutt judgment, the Court observed that “fairness and transparency in public administration requires that all entries… in the annual confidential report of a public servant… must be communicated to him within a reasonable period so that he can make a representation for its upgradation.”
The Court underscored that this obligation exists irrespective of whether service rules expressly mandate disclosure or even prohibit it, since the constitutional guarantee against arbitrariness overrides such limitations. In this context, it held that denying access to one’s own ACR would defeat the very purpose of ensuring accountability and fairness in administrative decision-making.
Addressing the reliance placed by the State on the judgment in Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, the Court clarified that the requirement of balancing public interest against privacy arises in cases where disclosure may intrude upon confidential or third-party information. In contrast, the present case involved an employee seeking access to his own performance records, which could not be equated with an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
The Court further noted that the Supreme Court itself had acknowledged that certain categories of information, particularly those concerning appointments or third-party disclosures made in confidence, may warrant protection. However, ACRs stand on a different footing, as they directly impact an employee’s career progression and must therefore be made accessible.
It observed that in the absence of communication of ACR entries by the employer, an employee is left with no option but to invoke the RTI mechanism. In such circumstances, rejecting the request on technical grounds such as absence of recorded satisfaction on public interest would be unjustified.
“The applicant has sought information in regard to his ACRs, which cannot be said to be invasion of privacy… The ACRs are required to be communicated to the employees,” the Court held.
Reaffirming the need to strike a balance between the right to privacy and the right to information, the Court emphasized that both rights emanate from constitutional values and must be harmonised. However, where the information sought pertains to the individual himself and serves the purpose of ensuring transparency and fairness, the balance tilts in favour of disclosure.
Finding no illegality in the order of the State Information Commission, the Court affirmed the same and dismissed the writ petition filed by the State, with no order as to costs.
Case Title: The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chief Information Commissioner and Others
Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that employees are entitled to access their own ACRs under RTI, rejecting privacy-based objections.
Deciding a writ petition filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, Justice Deepak Khot upheld an order of the State Information Commission directing disclosure of information sought by an applicant regarding his own ACRs. The State had challenged the Commission’s order dated December 1, 2009, contending that the information sought fell within the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which protects personal information from disclosure unless larger public interest justifies it.
The State argued that both the Public Information Officer and the appellate authority had rightly rejected the application, and that the Information Commission failed to record a finding of “objective satisfaction” showing that public interest outweighed privacy concerns, as required by the Supreme Court in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi.
However, the High Court found no merit in the State’s contention. It noted that the applicant had sought access to his own ACRs, and that the legal position on disclosure of such records had been clearly settled by the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India. Relying on this precedent, the Court emphasized that transparency in service matters is a necessary facet of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Quoting from Dev Dutt judgment, the Court observed that “fairness and transparency in public administration requires that all entries… in the annual confidential report of a public servant… must be communicated to him within a reasonable period so that he can make a representation for its upgradation.”
The Court underscored that this obligation exists irrespective of whether service rules expressly mandate disclosure or even prohibit it, since the constitutional guarantee against arbitrariness overrides such limitations. In this context, it held that denying access to one’s own ACR would defeat the very purpose of ensuring accountability and fairness in administrative decision-making.
Addressing the reliance placed by the State on the judgment in Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, the Court clarified that the requirement of balancing public interest against privacy arises in cases where disclosure may intrude upon confidential or third-party information. In contrast, the present case involved an employee seeking access to his own performance records, which could not be equated with an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
The Court further noted that the Supreme Court itself had acknowledged that certain categories of information, particularly those concerning appointments or third-party disclosures made in confidence, may warrant protection. However, ACRs stand on a different footing, as they directly impact an employee’s career progression and must therefore be made accessible.
It observed that in the absence of communication of ACR entries by the employer, an employee is left with no option but to invoke the RTI mechanism. In such circumstances, rejecting the request on technical grounds such as absence of recorded satisfaction on public interest would be unjustified.
“The applicant has sought information in regard to his ACRs, which cannot be said to be invasion of privacy… The ACRs are required to be communicated to the employees,” the Court held.
Reaffirming the need to strike a balance between the right to privacy and the right to information, the Court emphasized that both rights emanate from constitutional values and must be harmonised. However, where the information sought pertains to the individual himself and serves the purpose of ensuring transparency and fairness, the balance tilts in favour of disclosure.
Finding no illegality in the order of the State Information Commission, the Court affirmed the same and dismissed the writ petition filed by the State, with no order as to costs.
Case Title: The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chief Information Commissioner and Others
.JPG)
.JPG)
