Govt officials live in public glare, can’t deny details of assets, service record under RTI: Madras High Court

CHENNAI: Those joining public service must accept that they live in public glare and cannot prevent the general public from seeking details, at least so far as their service is concerned, said the Madras High Court in an order that would bring greater transparency in government service.

The court said this while setting aside the State Information Commissioner’s order denying details contained in the service register book of V Kalipriyan, an assistant engineer in the Water Resources Department, including movable and immovable assets in his name and that of his family members.

When the petitioner, C Seenivasan of Kaveripattinam in Krishnagiri, sought the information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the public information officer of WRD denied it citing that the details were protected under Section 8(j) of the Act and thus could not be disclosed. His appeals were rejected by the Krishnagiri District Revenue Officer, who is the first appellate authority, and the State Information Commissioner, the second appellate authority, citing the same reason.

Hearing Seenivasan’s writ petition against his application for information being rejected, Justice CV Karthikeyan said the court could not accept the reasoning that the details sought were personal information about the public servant and hence exempted.

The judge noted that the service register of public servants would contain details regarding the date of joining the service, transfers, increments, earned leaves availed, and also whether any punishments were awarded during the period of service.

Most of the details sought were not private, noted the judge, though he accepted, “to an extent”, that disclosing information about punishments imposed could be a stigma on the public servant.

“Once an individual accepts to join public service, he must accept that he lives in public glare and cannot avoid the general public from seeking details at least so far as their service is concerned,” Justice Karthikeyan said.

Noting that there is information which necessarily have to be protected from disclosure, the court said the details in the service register should be scrutinised and why those materials were sought under RTI should be verified by the officials concerned. However, it added, “There cannot be an order denying every information.” If any information sought is denied, then the reasons should be provided.

The court then set aside the impugned order denying the information, and asked Information Commissioner to consider the RTI application afresh. The official should also dispose of the pending second appeal within two months, the judge added.