Raw Law: New Delhi: Sunday, 16 August 2026.
Delhi High Court Dismisses LPA Seeking Vigilance and DPC Material; Holds Personal Promotion Records Cannot Be Disclosed Without Stronger Public Interest
Facts
The Delhi High Court considered a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury challenging the dismissal of his writ petition concerning information sought from Punjab & Sind Bank under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The judgment was delivered on 14 August 2026.
The appellant had filed an RTI application on 12 January 2024 seeking information relating to one Pankaj Dwivedi, an employee of the Bank who had been promoted to Scale VI on 1 April 2018 and thereafter to Scale VII on 1 April 2020.
The information sought included copies of the Vigilance Clearance Certificates relied upon by the Departmental Promotion Committee before both promotions, along with complete file notings, office notes, circulars, Office Memoranda, IBA/CVC guidelines and Board Resolutions relied upon in constituting the relevant DPCs. The appellant also sought details of the Chief Vigilance Officer.
The Public Information Officer supplied the CVO details but denied the vigilance-clearance and promotion-related records under Section 8(1)(j) RTI Act, holding them to be personal information of a third party whose disclosure did not serve any public activity or interest.
The First Appellate Authority affirmed the PIO’s decision. The Central Information Commission subsequently dismissed the second appeal on 20 March 2025, also holding that the requested information was personal information protected by Section 8(1)(j). The Single Judge then dismissed W.P.(C) 12204/2025 on 2 February 2026.
The appellant thereafter filed the present intra-court appeal.
Issues
The principal issues before the Division Bench were:
The appellant fairly conceded that the information sought at serial nos. 1 to 4 fell within Section 8(1)(j) because it concerned personal information of a third party.
His argument, however, was that Section 8(2) required disclosure because public interest outweighed any possible harm to the individual’s privacy.
The appellant contended that when Pankaj Dwivedi was promoted to Scale VI and later Scale VII, he was allegedly facing proceedings under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 as well as a criminal complaint under Sections 354A and 509 IPC.
According to the appellant, if vigilance clearances were issued and relied upon despite those pending allegations, the public had an interest in knowing whether the promotions of an officer of a nationalised bank had been lawfully granted.
He further argued that neither the RTI authorities nor the Single Judge had properly considered whether the public interest in disclosure outweighed the privacy harm, as expressly contemplated by Section 8(2).
Respondent’s Arguments
Punjab & Sind Bank opposed the appeal.
It submitted that the information admittedly concerned an identifiable individual and therefore constituted personal information.
According to the Bank, disclosure served no public purpose and would instead cause prejudice and harm to the individual concerned.
The Bank maintained that the Single Judge had correctly applied the statutory exemption and that no ground for interference was made out.
Analysis of the Law
Information Was Admittedly Personal
The Division Bench began by noting that even the appellant accepted that the requested vigilance and promotion materials were covered by Section 8(1)(j).
The real controversy was therefore not whether the information was personal, but whether the public-interest override under Section 8(2) required its disclosure.
PIO Had Considered Public Interest
The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the RTI authorities had mechanically invoked Section 8(1)(j) without considering public interest.
The PIO’s response expressly stated that disclosure of the information “does not serve any public activity or interest” and therefore fell within the exemption.
The First Appellate Authority concurred with that conclusion.
Accordingly, the High Court held that it was incorrect to say that the public-interest issue had not been considered at all.
CIC Also Applied Privacy–Public Interest Balance
The Central Information Commission had relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal.
The CIC noted that professional records such as qualifications, performance assessments, evaluation reports, ACRs and disciplinary proceedings are ordinarily personal information entitled to protection against unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Disclosure is permissible only where a larger public interest justifies overriding that protection.
The Division Bench therefore rejected the contention that the CIC had ignored Section 8(2).
Vigilance Clearance Certificate Does Not Serve Public Purpose Merely Because Officer Was Promoted
The Court specifically considered the request for the vigilance-clearance certificates relied upon before the promotions in 2018 and 2020.
It held that disclosure of the vigilance clearance concerning an individual employee did not serve any public purpose in the circumstances of the case.
On the contrary, disclosure could cause personal harm and prejudice to the individual concerned.
The information was therefore rightly withheld under Section 8(1)(j).
DPC Files and Promotion Material Also Protected
The appellant had also sought extensive materials including file notings, office notes, circulars, OMs, CVC guidelines and Board Resolutions relied upon in constituting the DPCs responsible for the officer’s promotions.
The High Court held that, in the context in which they were sought, these materials were directly connected with the promotion of a particular individual.
The Court characterised the request as appearing to amount to an attempt at “micro-management of the affairs of the respondent-Bank.”
It held that public interest in disclosure did not outweigh the potential personal harm to the promoted officer.
Pending Sexual Harassment or Criminal Complaints Did Not Automatically Trigger Disclosure
A significant aspect of the appellant’s case was that the officer was allegedly facing sexual-harassment proceedings and criminal allegations when vigilance clearance was granted.
The Court nevertheless declined to treat those allegations as sufficient, by themselves, to establish a larger public interest requiring disclosure.
The statutory test under Section 8(2) requires an actual balancing exercise between:
RTI Cannot Become a Tool for Monitoring Individual Personnel Decisions
The judgment draws an important distinction between transparency in public institutions and indiscriminate access to personal service records.
The Court accepted that Punjab & Sind Bank is a public authority, but held that this does not make all material relating to promotions, vigilance or individual service matters automatically public.
Where information concerns the promotion of a particular employee, the requester must demonstrate a larger and identifiable public interest, rather than merely seek to scrutinise or supervise the internal personnel administration of the institution.
Precedent Analysis
CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal
This was the principal precedent relied upon by the CIC and High Court.
The Supreme Court recognised that personal and professional records, including performance-related material and disciplinary information, fall within the sphere of privacy.
Such information is protected unless disclosure is justified by a sufficiently compelling larger public interest.
CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay
The Single Judge had relied upon this Supreme Court decision while considering the limits of the right to information and balancing transparency against competing statutory interests.
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner
This judgment was also relied upon for the proposition that information concerning an employee’s service matters and disciplinary or employment-related records is ordinarily personal information.
Disclosure cannot be compelled merely because the employee works for a public authority unless a larger public interest is demonstrated.
CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal
The Single Judge again relied upon this authority specifically to reject the invocation of the Section 8(2) public-interest exception in the facts of the case.
Court’s Reasoning
The Division Bench found no flaw in the approach adopted by the PIO, First Appellate Authority, CIC or Single Judge.
The appellant’s case was not that the requested information fell outside Section 8(1)(j); that exemption was expressly conceded.
His only route to disclosure was therefore Section 8(2).
However, each authority had considered whether disclosure served a public purpose and had concluded that it did not.
The Court found that the requested documents were intimately connected with an individual officer’s vigilance status and promotion process.
Even the existence of allegations against the officer did not automatically convert his personal service records into public information.
The Court therefore concluded that the potential public benefit of disclosure did not outweigh the privacy harm.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court held that vigilance-clearance certificates and promotion-related records concerning an individual officer are personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j) RTI Act, unless a larger public interest justifies disclosure.
It found no such overriding public interest in the present case.
The Court further held that seeking extensive DPC file material relating to an individual promotion appeared to amount to an attempt to micro-manage the Bank’s internal affairs.
Accordingly, the Division Bench found no ground to interfere with the Single Judge’s judgment.
The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Case Details Case: Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury v. Punjab and Sind Bank & Anr.
Date: 14 August 2026
Result: Appeal dismissed; denial of vigilance-clearance certificates and promotion-related records under Section 8(1)(j) RTI Act upheld for absence of overriding larger public interest.
Delhi High Court Dismisses LPA Seeking Vigilance and DPC Material; Holds Personal Promotion Records Cannot Be Disclosed Without Stronger Public Interest
The Delhi High Court considered a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury challenging the dismissal of his writ petition concerning information sought from Punjab & Sind Bank under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The judgment was delivered on 14 August 2026.
The appellant had filed an RTI application on 12 January 2024 seeking information relating to one Pankaj Dwivedi, an employee of the Bank who had been promoted to Scale VI on 1 April 2018 and thereafter to Scale VII on 1 April 2020.
The information sought included copies of the Vigilance Clearance Certificates relied upon by the Departmental Promotion Committee before both promotions, along with complete file notings, office notes, circulars, Office Memoranda, IBA/CVC guidelines and Board Resolutions relied upon in constituting the relevant DPCs. The appellant also sought details of the Chief Vigilance Officer.
The Public Information Officer supplied the CVO details but denied the vigilance-clearance and promotion-related records under Section 8(1)(j) RTI Act, holding them to be personal information of a third party whose disclosure did not serve any public activity or interest.
The First Appellate Authority affirmed the PIO’s decision. The Central Information Commission subsequently dismissed the second appeal on 20 March 2025, also holding that the requested information was personal information protected by Section 8(1)(j). The Single Judge then dismissed W.P.(C) 12204/2025 on 2 February 2026.
The appellant thereafter filed the present intra-court appeal.
Issues
The principal issues before the Division Bench were:
- Whether the vigilance-clearance certificates and DPC-related records concerning an individual bank officer constituted personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
- Whether the appellant had demonstrated a sufficiently strong larger public interest to override that exemption under Section 8(2).
- Whether the PIO, First Appellate Authority and CIC had failed to undertake the required public-interest balancing exercise.
- Whether pending allegations of sexual harassment and criminal complaints against the promoted officer justified disclosure of the vigilance material relied upon for his promotions.
- Whether disclosure of internal DPC file notings, CVC guidelines and related promotion material served a legitimate public purpose.
- Whether the Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition warranted interference in appeal.
The appellant fairly conceded that the information sought at serial nos. 1 to 4 fell within Section 8(1)(j) because it concerned personal information of a third party.
His argument, however, was that Section 8(2) required disclosure because public interest outweighed any possible harm to the individual’s privacy.
The appellant contended that when Pankaj Dwivedi was promoted to Scale VI and later Scale VII, he was allegedly facing proceedings under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 as well as a criminal complaint under Sections 354A and 509 IPC.
According to the appellant, if vigilance clearances were issued and relied upon despite those pending allegations, the public had an interest in knowing whether the promotions of an officer of a nationalised bank had been lawfully granted.
He further argued that neither the RTI authorities nor the Single Judge had properly considered whether the public interest in disclosure outweighed the privacy harm, as expressly contemplated by Section 8(2).
Respondent’s Arguments
Punjab & Sind Bank opposed the appeal.
It submitted that the information admittedly concerned an identifiable individual and therefore constituted personal information.
According to the Bank, disclosure served no public purpose and would instead cause prejudice and harm to the individual concerned.
The Bank maintained that the Single Judge had correctly applied the statutory exemption and that no ground for interference was made out.
Analysis of the Law
Information Was Admittedly Personal
The Division Bench began by noting that even the appellant accepted that the requested vigilance and promotion materials were covered by Section 8(1)(j).
The real controversy was therefore not whether the information was personal, but whether the public-interest override under Section 8(2) required its disclosure.
PIO Had Considered Public Interest
The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the RTI authorities had mechanically invoked Section 8(1)(j) without considering public interest.
The PIO’s response expressly stated that disclosure of the information “does not serve any public activity or interest” and therefore fell within the exemption.
The First Appellate Authority concurred with that conclusion.
Accordingly, the High Court held that it was incorrect to say that the public-interest issue had not been considered at all.
CIC Also Applied Privacy–Public Interest Balance
The Central Information Commission had relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal.
The CIC noted that professional records such as qualifications, performance assessments, evaluation reports, ACRs and disciplinary proceedings are ordinarily personal information entitled to protection against unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Disclosure is permissible only where a larger public interest justifies overriding that protection.
The Division Bench therefore rejected the contention that the CIC had ignored Section 8(2).
Vigilance Clearance Certificate Does Not Serve Public Purpose Merely Because Officer Was Promoted
The Court specifically considered the request for the vigilance-clearance certificates relied upon before the promotions in 2018 and 2020.
It held that disclosure of the vigilance clearance concerning an individual employee did not serve any public purpose in the circumstances of the case.
On the contrary, disclosure could cause personal harm and prejudice to the individual concerned.
The information was therefore rightly withheld under Section 8(1)(j).
DPC Files and Promotion Material Also Protected
The appellant had also sought extensive materials including file notings, office notes, circulars, OMs, CVC guidelines and Board Resolutions relied upon in constituting the DPCs responsible for the officer’s promotions.
The High Court held that, in the context in which they were sought, these materials were directly connected with the promotion of a particular individual.
The Court characterised the request as appearing to amount to an attempt at “micro-management of the affairs of the respondent-Bank.”
It held that public interest in disclosure did not outweigh the potential personal harm to the promoted officer.
Pending Sexual Harassment or Criminal Complaints Did Not Automatically Trigger Disclosure
A significant aspect of the appellant’s case was that the officer was allegedly facing sexual-harassment proceedings and criminal allegations when vigilance clearance was granted.
The Court nevertheless declined to treat those allegations as sufficient, by themselves, to establish a larger public interest requiring disclosure.
The statutory test under Section 8(2) requires an actual balancing exercise between:
- the public benefit of disclosure; and
- the harm to the protected privacy interest.
RTI Cannot Become a Tool for Monitoring Individual Personnel Decisions
The judgment draws an important distinction between transparency in public institutions and indiscriminate access to personal service records.
The Court accepted that Punjab & Sind Bank is a public authority, but held that this does not make all material relating to promotions, vigilance or individual service matters automatically public.
Where information concerns the promotion of a particular employee, the requester must demonstrate a larger and identifiable public interest, rather than merely seek to scrutinise or supervise the internal personnel administration of the institution.
Precedent Analysis
CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal
This was the principal precedent relied upon by the CIC and High Court.
The Supreme Court recognised that personal and professional records, including performance-related material and disciplinary information, fall within the sphere of privacy.
Such information is protected unless disclosure is justified by a sufficiently compelling larger public interest.
CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay
The Single Judge had relied upon this Supreme Court decision while considering the limits of the right to information and balancing transparency against competing statutory interests.
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner
This judgment was also relied upon for the proposition that information concerning an employee’s service matters and disciplinary or employment-related records is ordinarily personal information.
Disclosure cannot be compelled merely because the employee works for a public authority unless a larger public interest is demonstrated.
CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal
The Single Judge again relied upon this authority specifically to reject the invocation of the Section 8(2) public-interest exception in the facts of the case.
Court’s Reasoning
The Division Bench found no flaw in the approach adopted by the PIO, First Appellate Authority, CIC or Single Judge.
The appellant’s case was not that the requested information fell outside Section 8(1)(j); that exemption was expressly conceded.
His only route to disclosure was therefore Section 8(2).
However, each authority had considered whether disclosure served a public purpose and had concluded that it did not.
The Court found that the requested documents were intimately connected with an individual officer’s vigilance status and promotion process.
Even the existence of allegations against the officer did not automatically convert his personal service records into public information.
The Court therefore concluded that the potential public benefit of disclosure did not outweigh the privacy harm.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court held that vigilance-clearance certificates and promotion-related records concerning an individual officer are personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j) RTI Act, unless a larger public interest justifies disclosure.
It found no such overriding public interest in the present case.
The Court further held that seeking extensive DPC file material relating to an individual promotion appeared to amount to an attempt to micro-manage the Bank’s internal affairs.
Accordingly, the Division Bench found no ground to interfere with the Single Judge’s judgment.
The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Case Details Case: Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury v. Punjab and Sind Bank & Anr.
Date: 14 August 2026
Result: Appeal dismissed; denial of vigilance-clearance certificates and promotion-related records under Section 8(1)(j) RTI Act upheld for absence of overriding larger public interest.
.JPG)
.JPG)
