Karnataka HC: Asset Declarations of Public Servants Do Not Become Public Information Merely by Being Filed With Employer
Karnataka High Court dismisses RTI writ, holding that a public servant's asset and liability statements remain personal information under Section 8(1)(j) even when sought to support a private fraud dispute.
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru has dismissed a writ petition challenging the refusal by KSRTC's Public Information Officer and the Karnataka Information Commission to disclose the assets and liabilities statements of a former KSRTC Deputy Controller. Justice Suraj Govindaraj, sitting singly, held that the information sought fell squarely within the personal information exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and that the petitioner's private property dispute with the individual concerned did not constitute the “larger public interest” required to override that exemption. The judgment draws a careful line between information touching on the discharge of public duties and information concerning a public servant's personal financial affairs.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The petitioner, Smt. S Savithramma, a resident of Banashankari, Bengaluru, alleged that one Sri S.P. Jayapal — who had served as Deputy Controller at KSRTC's Central Office, K.H. Road, Bengaluru, between 1990 and 2002 — had fraudulently obtained a sale deed in respect of her property. She contended that the transaction was reflected in Sri Jayapal's income tax returns and that civil suits arising from the dispute were pending. To support her case, she applied to KSRTC's Public Information Officer (Respondent No. 3) seeking Sri Jayapal's assets and liabilities statements for the years 1997 to 2005.
KSRTC's Public Information Officer rejected the application, holding that the information fell within the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 — personal information whose disclosure bore no relationship to any public activity or interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the individual's privacy. Savithramma appealed to the Karnataka Information Commission (Respondent No. 1), which upheld the rejection by its order dated 6 May 2025 in Case No. Ka.Maa.A 6939 APL 2024. She then filed Writ Petition No. 21831 of 2025 before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the Commission's order and a writ of mandamus directing KSRTC to furnish the information.
The Legal Issue: When Does a Public Servant's Asset Declaration Lose Its Private Character?
The central question was whether asset and liability statements filed by a public servant with his employer under applicable service rules could be treated as public information, thereby taking the request outside the exemption in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Counsel for the petitioner advanced two arguments. First, that since Sri Jayapal was a public servant required by service rules to disclose his assets and liabilities, that information partook the character of public information and could not be withheld. Second, that the alleged fraudulent acquisition of property was reflected in Sri Jayapal's income tax returns, and information connected to such a transaction could not be treated as purely personal.
The court framed the inquiry around three elements that must be satisfied for Section 8(1)(j) to operate: the information must be personal information relating to an individual; its disclosure must have no relationship to any public activity or public interest; and disclosure must result in an unwarranted invasion of the individual's privacy. Once those elements are met, the exemption applies unless the competent authority is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies disclosure.
How the Bench Reasoned
Justice Govindaraj rejected the broad proposition that a public servant's status automatically renders all information about him disclosable. The court held that such an interpretation would “substantially dilute” the protection expressly afforded by Section 8(1)(j) to an entire class of individuals merely because they hold public office — an outcome contrary to legislative intent. Public servants, the court observed, do not cease to possess privacy rights by reason of their employment in public service.
The judgment draws a distinction between two categories of information. Information concerning official acts, decisions taken in an official capacity, exercise of statutory powers, utilisation of public resources, or matters directly connected with public administration may stand on a different footing. By contrast, information relating to personal assets, liabilities, financial affairs, income particulars, tax records, family matters, and medical records ordinarily falls within the ambit of personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j), unless disclosure is justified by an overriding public interest.
On the specific argument that asset declarations filed with the employer under service rules become publicly disclosable, the court was equally firm. It held that a distinction must be maintained between information furnished to a competent authority for administrative, vigilance, regulatory, or service-related purposes and information liable to be disclosed to the public at large. The purpose for which such information is collected — ensuring compliance with service rules, promoting probity, identifying conflicts of interest, facilitating vigilance oversight — cannot automatically determine the scope of its disclosure to third parties. If mere filing of an asset declaration before a public authority were sufficient to render the information publicly accessible, the protection under Section 8(1)(j) would be substantially diluted.
The court then addressed the petitioner's reliance on the alleged fraud. It held that the relevant enquiry under Section 8(1)(j) is not whether allegations have been made against the person whose information is sought. Mere allegations, however serious, cannot by themselves convert personal information into public information. Accepting such a proposition, the court noted, would allow the protection under Section 8(1)(j) to be rendered illusory by the simple expedient of making allegations against an individual and thereafter seeking disclosure of his personal records.
On the question of “larger public interest,” the court held that the expression must be distinguished from a private interest. Every litigant may have a genuine interest in obtaining information to support a case, but a private interest, however bona fide, is not synonymous with public interest. The statute contemplates an interest that transcends the concerns of the individual applicant and bears a nexus to the welfare of the public at large or a substantial section thereof. Disclosure under the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) is justified only where the public interest is of such significance as to outweigh the privacy interests protected by the exemption — for instance, to expose corruption, abuse of public office, misuse of public funds, acquisition of disproportionate assets, or systemic irregularities affecting governance.
In the present case, the court found that the petitioner had placed no material before it to establish that the information was required for any such purpose. The entire foundation of the request was a disputed property transaction between the petitioner and Sri Jayapal — a private dispute between identifiable individuals. The court observed that the petitioner may have remedies available under civil law, criminal law, or other applicable statutory frameworks for establishing the alleged fraud, but the RTI Act cannot be employed as a mechanism for obtaining personal information otherwise protected under law merely to advance a private claim.
The court also situated the exemption within the constitutional framework, noting that the right to privacy is now recognised as a constitutionally protected right and that Section 8(1)(j) represents a statutory manifestation of that protection in the context of access to information. Accepting the petitioner's contention, it held, would seriously erode the privacy protections recognised under the RTI Act and would upset the balance consciously struck by Parliament between the citizen's right to information and the individual's right to privacy.
Outcome
Justice Suraj Govindaraj found no infirmity, illegality, arbitrariness, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the order passed by KSRTC's Public Information Officer or in the Karnataka Information Commission's order dated 6 May 2025 affirming it. The court held that both authorities had correctly applied the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act while rejecting the request for disclosure. Writ Petition No. 21831 of 2025 was dismissed as devoid of merit by order dated 1 June 2026.