Annual Confidential Reports must be communicated to public servants to ensure transparency and prevent arbitrariness.

The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated September 8, 2011, passed by the State Information Commission.

The Commission had directed the State to provide information regarding an applicant's own Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs).

The Public Information Officer and the first appellate authority had originally rejected the request, citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts personal information that lacks public interest or invades privacy.

The State argued that the Commission failed to record an "objective satisfaction" that the public interest outweighed the privacy concerns as required by Supreme Court precedent.

1. Whether information regarding a public servant's own ACRs can be withheld under the exemption of "personal information" provided in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

2. Whether the State Information Commission was required to record an objective satisfaction of larger public interest before disclosing ACRs to the concerned employee.

The court primarily applied the principle of transparency and fairness in public administration as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.

It relied on Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008) 8 SCC 725, which established that all entries in the ACR of a public servant (except military) must be communicated to them to ensure non-arbitrariness.

It further considered the principles from Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (2012) 13 SCC 61, which held that while personal information is protected, the authority must weigh the right to privacy against the right to information based on objective satisfaction in the context of larger public interest.

While Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi requires an objective satisfaction regarding public interest when third-party privacy is involved, the court noted that the applicant here was seeking her own ACRs.

Following the mandate in Dev Dutt, the court reasoned that ACRs are required to be communicated to employees as a matter of legal right to allow for representations for upgradation.

Therefore, disclosing an employee's own records to them does not constitute an "unwarranted invasion of privacy" and does not necessitate a specific finding of "larger public interest" to override the exemption, as the non-communication of such records would be inherently arbitrary under Article 14.

The High Court affirmed the State Information Commission's order dated September 8, 2011, and dismissed the State's petition.

It held that because ACRs must be communicated to employees under the law, the RTI application could not be rejected on the grounds of failing to record "objective satisfaction" regarding public interest.

No order as to costs was made.