Deccan Herald: Sikkim: Thursday, 11 June 2026.
The petitioner alleged that Jayapal had procured a sale deed in respect of the petitioner's property by fraudulent means.
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 of Karnataka said in a recent judgement.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj added that 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 the KSRTC Central Office in Shantinagar at the relevant time.
The KIC had upheld the order passed by the Public Information Officer, KSRTC, with a finding that the information sought has no relationship to any public activity or interest and would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy as per Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The petitioner alleged that Jayapal had procured a sale deed in respect of the petitioner's 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 information.
It is further argued that since Jayapal is a public servant, details relating to 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.
Larger public cause should outweigh privacy interest:
Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that there is a distinction between information furnished to a competent authority for administrative, vigilance, regulatory, or service-related purposes and information which is liable to be disclosed to the public at large.
“While the 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, 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,” Justice Suraj Govindaraj said.
The court further said, “The right to privacy is now recognised as a constitutionally protected right. Clause (j) of Sub Section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act represents a statutory manifestation of that protection in the context of access to information.
Therefore, before directing disclosure of personal information, the authority concerned must be satisfied that the public interest sought to be served is of such magnitude as to outweigh the privacy interests of the individual concerned. No such circumstances have been demonstrated in the present case.”
The petitioner alleged that Jayapal had procured a sale deed in respect of the petitioner's property by fraudulent means.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj added that 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 the KSRTC Central Office in Shantinagar at the relevant time.
The KIC had upheld the order passed by the Public Information Officer, KSRTC, with a finding that the information sought has no relationship to any public activity or interest and would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy as per Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The petitioner alleged that Jayapal had procured a sale deed in respect of the petitioner's 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 information.
It is further argued that since Jayapal is a public servant, details relating to 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.
Larger public cause should outweigh privacy interest:
Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that there is a distinction between information furnished to a competent authority for administrative, vigilance, regulatory, or service-related purposes and information which is liable to be disclosed to the public at large.
“While the 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, 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,” Justice Suraj Govindaraj said.
The court further said, “The right to privacy is now recognised as a constitutionally protected right. Clause (j) of Sub Section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act represents a statutory manifestation of that protection in the context of access to information.
Therefore, before directing disclosure of personal information, the authority concerned must be satisfied that the public interest sought to be served is of such magnitude as to outweigh the privacy interests of the individual concerned. No such circumstances have been demonstrated in the present case.”
.JPG)
.JPG)
