Deccan Herald: Karnataka: Friday, 12 June 2026.
The petitioner S Savithramma, a resident of Bengaluru, challenged the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) order on her application.
The provisions of the RTI
Act cannot be employed as a mechanism for obtaining personal information
otherwise protected under law, merely for the purpose of advancing a private
claim, the high court said in a recent judgement.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said mere allegations, however serious, cannot by themselves convert personal information into public information. The petitioner S Savithramma, a resident of Bengaluru, challenged the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) order on her application seeking asset and liability statement of one S P Jayapal, deputy controller at KSRTC central office in Shantinagar here.
The KIC had upheld the order passed by the public information officer, KSRTC, with a finding that the infor sought had no relationship to any public activity or interest and would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy as per Sec 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act.
The petitioner said Jayapal procured a sale deed in respect of her property by fraudulent means.
This transaction has been reflected in the Income Tax returns filed by Jayapal, and hence, information sought under RTI cannot be treated as personal, she said.
It was argued that since Jayapal is a public servant, details on his assets cannot be regarded as purely personal information, particularly when such information is sought in connection with allegations of fraud and illegal acquisition of property.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said that there was a distinction between information furnished to a competent authority for administrative, vigilance, regulatory, or service-related purposes and information liable to be disclosed to public at large.
“While petitioner may have remedies available under civil law, criminal law, or any other applicable statutory framework for establishing the alleged fraud and seeking appropriate reliefs, provisions of RTI Act cannot be employed as a mechanism for obtaining personal information,” the judge said.
The petitioner S Savithramma, a resident of Bengaluru, challenged the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) order on her application.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said mere allegations, however serious, cannot by themselves convert personal information into public information. The petitioner S Savithramma, a resident of Bengaluru, challenged the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) order on her application seeking asset and liability statement of one S P Jayapal, deputy controller at KSRTC central office in Shantinagar here.
The KIC had upheld the order passed by the public information officer, KSRTC, with a finding that the infor sought had no relationship to any public activity or interest and would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy as per Sec 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act.
The petitioner said Jayapal procured a sale deed in respect of her property by fraudulent means.
This transaction has been reflected in the Income Tax returns filed by Jayapal, and hence, information sought under RTI cannot be treated as personal, she said.
It was argued that since Jayapal is a public servant, details on his assets cannot be regarded as purely personal information, particularly when such information is sought in connection with allegations of fraud and illegal acquisition of property.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said that there was a distinction between information furnished to a competent authority for administrative, vigilance, regulatory, or service-related purposes and information liable to be disclosed to public at large.
“While petitioner may have remedies available under civil law, criminal law, or any other applicable statutory framework for establishing the alleged fraud and seeking appropriate reliefs, provisions of RTI Act cannot be employed as a mechanism for obtaining personal information,” the judge said.
.JPG)
.JPG)
