Times of India: Raipur: Saturday, 18 July 2026.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that personal documents and service records of government employees cannot be shared under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, unless a larger public interest is established. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad on July 14 observed that a public servant’s personal documents including caste certificates, residential proof, educational qualifications, affidavits submitted during appointment, and service records fall within the ambit of personal information. The court directed public information officers (PIOs) not to disclose such private details under the RTI Act without proof of significant public interest.
The ruling comes in
response to a writ petition filed by a patwari posted at Kamarga under the
Lailunga tehsil in Raigarh district. The petitioner was appointed to the post
on 7 March 2024. Following his appointment, a private organisation named Crime
Free India Force filed an RTI application before the sub-divisional officer
(revenue)-cum-PIO, Lailunga, seeking copies of the petitioner’s caste
certificate, residential proof, educational documents, affidavits, and service
records.
Fearing an invasion of his privacy, the patwari moved the HC seeking relief. The petitioner requested the court to restrain the authorities from providing his personal documents and confidential service records to a third party, arguing that the information is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Senior counsel Mateen Siddiqui and counsel Danish Ahmed Siddiqui, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the requested documents are purely personal and have no connection to any public activity or broader public interest. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the counsel stated that a public servant’s service record, qualification details, and asset disclosures constitute personal information exempt from disclosure. They argued that disclosing such data without substantial public interest violates the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The additional advocate general representing the state government and the counsel for the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission opposed the petition. They argued that the petitioner’s apprehensions are premature as the PIO has not taken a final decision on sharing the information. They submitted that the PIO is a statutory authority who will examine the application under the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and supreme court guidelines.
The HC observed that since the PIO has not passed a final order, intervening through a writ petition at this stage would be premature.
The court has instructed the PIO to independently examine every RTI application. The official must determine whether the requested information is personal. The court stated that if the information is personal and lacks any proven public interest, it must not be provided to the applicant. If the competent authority concludes that disclosure is necessary, a reasoned order must be passed detailing the specific legal grounds.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that personal documents and service records of government employees cannot be shared under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, unless a larger public interest is established. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad on July 14 observed that a public servant’s personal documents including caste certificates, residential proof, educational qualifications, affidavits submitted during appointment, and service records fall within the ambit of personal information. The court directed public information officers (PIOs) not to disclose such private details under the RTI Act without proof of significant public interest.
Fearing an invasion of his privacy, the patwari moved the HC seeking relief. The petitioner requested the court to restrain the authorities from providing his personal documents and confidential service records to a third party, arguing that the information is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Senior counsel Mateen Siddiqui and counsel Danish Ahmed Siddiqui, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the requested documents are purely personal and have no connection to any public activity or broader public interest. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the counsel stated that a public servant’s service record, qualification details, and asset disclosures constitute personal information exempt from disclosure. They argued that disclosing such data without substantial public interest violates the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The additional advocate general representing the state government and the counsel for the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission opposed the petition. They argued that the petitioner’s apprehensions are premature as the PIO has not taken a final decision on sharing the information. They submitted that the PIO is a statutory authority who will examine the application under the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and supreme court guidelines.
The HC observed that since the PIO has not passed a final order, intervening through a writ petition at this stage would be premature.
The court has instructed the PIO to independently examine every RTI application. The official must determine whether the requested information is personal. The court stated that if the information is personal and lacks any proven public interest, it must not be provided to the applicant. If the competent authority concludes that disclosure is necessary, a reasoned order must be passed detailing the specific legal grounds.
.JPG)
.JPG)
