Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. S. Savithramma, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, challenging an order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the Karnataka Information Commission (R1) in Case No. Ka.Maa.A 6939 APL 2024. The petitioner had sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, from the Public Information Officer (R3) of KSRTC, requesting the assets and liability statements of one Sri S.P. Jayapal, a public servant who worked as a DC at the Central Office, K.H. Road, Bengaluru, for the years 1997-2005. The Information Commission dismissed the application, holding that the information was personal and exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The petitioner argued that the information sought was not personal but related to a public servant's assets, and that the Commission had not followed the procedure under Section 11 of the Act. The respondents contended that the information was personal and that the petitioner had not shown any larger public interest. The court analyzed the provisions of the RTI Act, particularly Sections 8(1)(j) and 11, and held that the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) applies only to information that is not related to any public activity or interest. The court noted that assets and liabilities statements of a public servant are not inherently personal and that the petitioner had a legitimate public interest in verifying the assets of a public servant. The court also observed that the Information Commission had not followed the procedure under Section 11, which requires notice to a third party before denying information. The court quashed the order of the Information Commission and directed the Public Information Officer (R3) to provide the information sought within a specified period. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Right to Information Act - Section 8(1)(j) - Personal Information - Exemption - The exemption under Section 8(1)(j) applies only to information which is not related to any public activity or interest. Assets and liabilities statements of a public servant are not inherently personal and may be disclosed if larger public interest is shown. (Paras 1-10) B) Right to Information Act - Section 11 - Third Party - Procedure - The Information Commission failed to follow the procedure under Section 11 before denying information, as the petitioner was not a third party but the applicant seeking information. (Paras 1-10) C) Right to Information Act - Public Interest - Disclosure - The petitioner sought information to verify the assets of a public servant, which is a legitimate public interest. The Commission's order was quashed and the PIO directed to provide the information. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Karnataka Information Commission erred in dismissing the petitioner's RTI application seeking assets and liability statements of a public servant for the years 1997-2005, and whether the information sought is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the Karnataka Information Commission in Case No. Ka.Maa.A 6939 APL 2024 is quashed. The Public Information Officer (R3) is directed to furnish the assets and liability statements of Sri S.P. Jayapal for the years 1997-2005 to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Law Points
- Right to Information Act
- 2005
- Section 8(1)(j)
- Section 11
- Third Party
- Personal Information
- Larger Public Interest
- Assets and Liabilities Statements
- Public Servant
