SMT. S SAVITHRAMMA vs THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION

- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25434
WP No. 21831 of 2025

HC-KAR



®

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ST
DATED THIS THE 1 DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE


THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO. 21831 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. S SAVITHRAMMA
D/O LATE SRI Y SUBBA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
TH
R AT NO. 5, 30 MAIN,
TH
30 CROSS, DHOBI GHAT,
BANASHANKARI 560070

…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G B NANDISH GOWDA.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION
ROOM NO. 104, FIRST FLOOR,
INFORMATION HOUSE D DEVARAJ ARASU ROAD,
OPPOSITE WEST GATE 02,
OF VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU 560001.

2. THE DEPUTY MANAGER (ADMIN)
KSRTC, SHANTHINAGAR, K H ROAD,
BENGALURU 560027.

3. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
KSRTC SHANTHINAGAR,
DOUBLE ROAD (K H ROAD)
BENGALURU 560027,

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARATH B. GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. H.R. RENUKA., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)












Digitally signed
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25434
WP No. 21831 of 2025

HC-KAR


THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2025
PASSED BY THE R1 i.e., TYHE KARNATAKA INFORMATION
COMMISSION IN CASE NO. KA MAA A 6939 APL 2024 VIDE
ANNEXURE -F AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs;
a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
st
order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the 1
respondent i.e., the Karnataka Information
Commission in Case No.Ka.Maa.A 6939 APL 2024
vide Annexure-F;

b. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing
the R3 to furnish information the assets and liability
statements for the year 1997-2005 on One Sri. S.P.
Jayapal s/o Papanna who worked as DC at the
Central Office, KH Road, Bengaluru during 1990-
2002.

c. And grant such other order or directions as this
Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of
the case, in the interest of justice and equity.


2. The petitioner had approached the respondent No.3
seeking for furnishing of the asset and liability
statement of one Sri.S.P.Jayapal S/o Papanna, who
was working as the Deputy Controller at the Central
Office, KH Road, Bengaluru during 1990-2002, on

- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25434
WP No. 21831 of 2025

HC-KAR


the ground that he had fraudulently obtained the sale
deed from the petitioner and there being civil suits
which were pending, these documents were required
by the petitioner.

3. The said application came to be rejected by
respondent No.3 on the ground that the same would
come within the purview of Clause (j) Sub-section
(1) of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005
(for short hereinafter referred to as “ RTI Act,
2005 ”), namely that it relates to personal
information, the disclosure of which has no
relationship to any public activity or interest or which
would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the
individual. It is challenging the said order the
petitioner had approached respondent No.1. The
respondent No.1 upheld the order passed by
respondent No.3 and it is in that background that the
petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
aforesaid reliefs.

4. Sri G.B. Nandish Gowda, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, submits as follows:

4.1. It is contended that Sri S.P. Jayapal has
procured a sale deed in respect of the
petitioner's property by practising fraud upon

- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25434
WP No. 21831 of 2025

HC-KAR


the petitioner. According to the learned
counsel, the said transaction has been reflected
in the Income Tax Returns filed by Sri S.P.
Jayapal. In that view of the matter, it is
submitted that the information sought by the
petitioner cannot be treated as personal
information exempted from disclosure under
clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the
Right to Information Act, 2005.

4.2. Learned counsel further submits that Sri S.P.
Jayapal is a public servant and, therefore, any
immovable property acquired by him, together
with the corresponding disclosure of assets and
liabilities required to be made under the
applicable service rules and statutory
provisions, partakes the character of public
information. It is his submission that details
relating to the acquisition of assets by a public
servant cannot be regarded as purely personal
information, particularly when such information
is sought in connection with allegations of fraud
and illegal acquisition of property.

4.3. Learned counsel therefore contends that
respondent No.3 has erred in rejecting the

- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25434
WP No. 21831 of 2025

HC-KAR


petitioner's request for information on the
ground of exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of
the RTI Act, 2005, and that respondent No.1
has further erred in affirming the said decision.
On the aforesaid grounds, he submits that the
impugned orders are liable to be set aside and
the application submitted by the petitioner
seeking the requested information and
documents deserves to be allowed.

5. Heard Sri.G.B.Nandish Gowda., learned counsel for
appearing for the petitioner. None appears for the
respondents.

6. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference;
8. Exemption from disclosure of information. —
( 1 ) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,
there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,—

( a ) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially
affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the
security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of
the State, relation with foreign State or lead to
incitement of an offence;

( b ) information which has been expressly forbidden to
be published by any court of law or tribunal or the
disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;

( c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a
breach of privilege of Parliament or the State
Legislature;

- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25434
WP No. 21831 of 2025

HC-KAR



( d ) information including commercial confidence, trade
secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which
would harm the competitive position of a third party,
unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger
public interest warrants the disclosure of such
information;

( e) information available to a person in his fiduciary
relationship, unless the competent authority is
satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the
disclosure of such information;

( f ) information received in confidence from foreign
Government;

( g ) information, the disclosure of which would
endanger the life or physical safety of any person or
identify the source of information or assistance given
in confidence for law enforcement or security
purposes;

( h ) information which would impede the process of
investigation or apprehension or prosecution of
offenders;

( i ) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of
the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers:
Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the
reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of
which the decisions were taken shall be made public
after the decision has been taken, and the matter is
complete, or over:

Provided further that those matters which come
under the exemptions specified in this section shall not
be disclosed;

( j ) information which relates to personal information
the disclosure of which has no relationship to any
public activity or interest, or which would cause
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual
unless the Central Public Information Officer or the
State Public Information Officer or the appellate
authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the

- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25434
WP No. 21831 of 2025

HC-KAR


larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such
information: Provided that the information which
cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State
Legislature shall not be denied to any person.

7. A reading of Sub Section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI
Act, 2005 makes it clear that the exemptions
enumerated in clauses (a) to (j) thereof operate
notwithstanding anything contained in the Act. The
provision commences with a non-obstante clause and
carves out specific categories of information which
are exempt from disclosure. Thus, notwithstanding
the general right of access to information conferred
under the Act, information falling within any of the
exempted categories specified in Sub Section (1) of
Section 8 cannot ordinarily be disclosed unless the
case falls within the exceptions provided therein.

8. Clause (j) of sub section (1) of Section 8 specifically
deals with personal information. The provision
exempts from disclosure information that relates to
personal information, the disclosure of which is
unrelated to any public activity or public interest, or
that would result in an unwarranted invasion of an
individual's privacy. The exemption, however, is not
absolute. Disclosure may still be directed if the
Central Public Information Officer, the State Public
Information Officer, or the Appellate Authority, as

- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25434
WP No. 21831 of 2025

HC-KAR


the case may be, is satisfied that a larger public
interest justifies such disclosure.

9. The ingredients of clause (j) may broadly be
understood as comprising three distinct elements:

9.1. the information sought must be personal
information relating to an individual;

9.2. the disclosure of such information must have no
relationship to any public activity or public
interest; and/or

9.3. the disclosure must result in an unwarranted
invasion of the privacy of the individual
concerned.

10. Once the information sought satisfies the aforesaid
requirements, the statutory exemption becomes
operative and such information cannot ordinarily be
directed to be disclosed under the RTI Act.

11. The only exception to the aforesaid rule is where the
competent authority arrives at a conclusion that a
larger public interest warrants disclosure. Thus, while
the right to privacy of an individual is protected
under clause (j), the same may yield in an
appropriate case where the larger public interest

- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25434
WP No. 21831 of 2025

HC-KAR


demonstrably outweighs the privacy interests sought
to be protected. The burden would necessarily lie on
the applicant seeking disclosure to establish the
existence of such overriding public interest.

12. In the present case, the information sought pertains
to the assets and liabilities statement of Sri S.P.
Jayapal, who, at the relevant point of time, was
serving as Deputy Controller in KSRTC. The
information sought is not information relating to the
functioning of the public authority, the discharge of
official duties, governmental decision-making,
utilisation of public funds, or the performance of any
statutory function. What is sought is information
relating to the personal assets and liabilities of an
individual, albeit an individual holding a public post.

13. The principal contention of the petitioner is that since
Sri S.P. Jayapal was holding a public office and was
required to disclose his assets and liabilities under
the applicable service rules, the information sought
assumes the character of public information and
cannot be denied by invoking Clause (j) of Sub
Section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act.

14. This contention cannot be accepted in the broad
manner in which it is canvassed. The mere fact that

- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25434
WP No. 21831 of 2025

HC-KAR


a person is a public servant does not ipso facto
render every piece of information concerning him
amenable to disclosure under the RTI Act. If such an
interpretation were to be accepted, the protection
expressly afforded under Clause (j) of Sub Section
(1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act would stand
substantially diluted in respect of an entire class of
individuals merely because they happen to hold
public office. Such an interpretation would be
contrary to the legislative intent underlying Clause
(j) of Sub Section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act,
which recognises that public servants do not cease to
possess privacy rights merely by reason of their
employment in public service.

15. A distinction must necessarily be drawn between
information relating to the discharge of public duties
and information relating to the private affairs of a
public servant. 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. However,
information relating to personal assets, liabilities,
financial affairs, income particulars, tax records,
family matters, medical records, and similar personal

- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25434
WP No. 21831 of 2025

HC-KAR


details would ordinarily fall within the ambit of
personal information protected under Clause (j) of
Sub Section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act, unless
disclosure is justified by an overriding public interest.

16. Equally, the mere fact that such information is
required to be furnished by a public servant to his
employer or to a statutory authority under the
applicable service rules does not, by itself, render the
information publicly disclosable under the RTI Act. A
distinction has to be maintained between information
furnished to a competent authority for
administrative, vigilance, regulatory, or service-
related purposes and information which is liable to be
disclosed to the public at large.

17. Asset and liability statements are ordinarily collected
by the employer or the competent authority to
ensure compliance with service rules, promote
probity in public service, identify possible conflicts of
interest, and facilitate vigilance or disciplinary
oversight, wherever required. The purpose for which
such information is collected cannot automatically
determine the scope of its disclosure to third parties.
Whether such information can be disclosed under the
RTI Act must necessarily be tested on the touchstone

- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25434
WP No. 21831 of 2025

HC-KAR


of Clause (j) of Sub Section (1) of Section 8 of the
RTI Act and the exceptions engrafted therein.

18. If the mere filing of an asset declaration before a
public authority were sufficient to render the
information publicly accessible, the protection
afforded by Clause (j) of Sub Section (1) of Section 8
of the RTI Act would stand substantially diluted. Such
an interpretation would lead to the anomalous
consequence that personal financial information
would lose its protected character solely because it
has been furnished to a public authority in
compliance with a statutory or service obligation.

19. Therefore, even assuming that the assets and
liabilities statement sought by the petitioner was
furnished by Sri S.P. Jayapal in compliance with the
applicable service rules, the same would not, for that
reason alone, cease to be personal information. The
question of disclosure would nevertheless have to be
examined within the framework of Clause (j) of Sub
Section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act and the test of
larger public interest embodied therein.

20. The petitioner seeks disclosure of the information on
the ground that Sri S.P. Jayapal is alleged to have
obtained a sale deed in respect of the petitioner's

- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25434
WP No. 21831 of 2025

HC-KAR


property by fraudulent means and that the
transaction is reflected in the assets and liabilities
statement and related records.

21. The question which arises under Clause (j) of Sub
Section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act, however, is
not whether the applicant has made allegations
against the person whose information is sought. The
relevant enquiry is whether the information sought
constitutes personal information and, if so, whether
there exists a demonstrable larger public interest
warranting disclosure. Mere allegations, however
serious, cannot by themselves convert personal
information into public information. If such a
proposition were to be accepted, the protection
afforded under Clause (j) of Sub Section (1) of
Section 8 of the RTI Act could be rendered illusory by
the simple expedient of making allegations against
an individual and thereafter seeking disclosure of his
personal records.

22. The petitioner seeks the information in aid of his
challenge to a property transaction allegedly entered
into between himself and Sri S.P. Jayapal. The
purpose for which the information is sought is
therefore directly connected with the assertion and

- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25434
WP No. 21831 of 2025

HC-KAR


enforcement of private rights arising out of a private
dispute between identifiable individuals.

23. While the petitioner may have remedies available
under civil law, criminal law, or any other applicable
statutory framework for establishing the alleged
fraud and seeking appropriate reliefs, the provisions
of the RTI Act cannot be employed as a mechanism
for obtaining personal information otherwise
protected under law merely for the purpose of
advancing a private claim.

24. The concept of "public interest" occurring in Clause
(j) of Sub Section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act
must necessarily be distinguished from a private
interest. Every litigant may have a genuine interest
in obtaining information which may support his case.
However, a private interest, however bona fide, is
not synonymous with public interest. The statute
contemplates something more, namely an interest
which transcends the concerns of the individual
applicant and bears a nexus to the welfare of the
public at large or a substantial section thereof.

25. The expression "larger public interest" employed in
Clause (j) of Sub Section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI
Act is of considerable significance. The legislature

- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25434
WP No. 21831 of 2025

HC-KAR


has consciously not used the expression "interest of
the applicant". Disclosure under the proviso is
justified only where the public interest sought to be
served is of such significance as to outweigh the
privacy interests protected by the exemption
provision. Such public interest may arise where
disclosure is necessary to expose corruption, abuse
of public office, misuse of public funds, acquisition of
disproportionate assets, systemic irregularities, or
other matters affecting governance and public
administration.

26. In the present case, the petitioner has not placed
any material before this Court to establish that the
information sought is required for exposing
corruption, misuse of public office, diversion of public
funds, disproportionate acquisition of assets, or any
issue affecting the public at large. The entire
foundation of the request is the petitioner's assertion
regarding a disputed property transaction. Even
assuming such allegation to be true, the dispute
remains essentially a private dispute between the
petitioner and Sri S.P. Jayapal.

27. Acceptance of the petitioner's contention would
effectively result in permitting disclosure of personal

- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25434
WP No. 21831 of 2025

HC-KAR


financial information whenever a private dispute is
alleged. Such an approach 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.

28. The right to privacy is now recognised as a
constitutionally protected right. Clause (j) of Sub
Section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act represents a
statutory manifestation of that protection in the
context of access to information. Therefore, before
directing disclosure of personal information, the
authority concerned must be satisfied that the public
interest sought to be served is of such magnitude as
to outweigh the privacy interests of the individual
concerned. No such circumstances have been
demonstrated in the present case.

29. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that
the information sought by the petitioner squarely
falls within the ambit of personal information
protected under Clause (j) of Sub Section (1) of
Section 8 of the RTI Act of the RTI Act and that the
petitioner has failed to establish the existence of any
overriding or larger public interest warranting

- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25434
WP No. 21831 of 2025

HC-KAR


disclosure thereof. The statutory exemption would
therefore operate in the facts of the present case.

30. Consequently, this Court finds no infirmity, illegality,
arbitrariness, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the
order passed by respondent No.3 and affirmed by
respondent No.1. The authorities have correctly
applied the exemption contained in Clause (j) of Sub
Section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act of the RTI Act
while rejecting the request for disclosure.

31. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit
stands dismissed .

SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE

SR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56