Cash books containing third-party personal particulars require severability assessment before disclosure under the RTI Act.

The petitioner, an Assistant Conservator of Forest and the then Public Information Officer, received an RTI application dated 25.05.2022 from Respondent No. 2 seeking certified copies of the Cash Book of Bakawand Range for the financial year 2018–19.

The petitioner initially offered inspection of the relevant records. Respondent No. 2 thereafter sought copies of the Cash Book for specified months.

The petitioner declined disclosure on the ground that the records contained personal particulars of employees, labourers and other third parties, attracting the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”).

The First Appellate Authority affirmed that decision by a reasoned order dated 19.10.2022. In second appeal, however, the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission directed disclosure of the Cash Book by order dated 08.08.2024.

The Court applied Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts personal information whose disclosure has no relationship to public activity or interest, or would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless disclosure is justified by larger public interest.

It also relied on Section 10 of the RTI Act, which permits severance of exempt portions of a record so that non-exempt information may be disclosed, subject to an appropriate identification and separation of the protected material.

The Court further considered the manner of access under the RTI Act, including inspection of records, and noted the petitioner’s reliance on Section 7(9) concerning the form in which information may be supplied.

The Court found that the Cash Book contained personal particulars relating to employees, labourers and other third parties, thereby engaging the privacy exemption under Section 8(1)(j).

The petitioner had invoked that exemption and the First Appellate Authority had affirmed the refusal through a reasoned order.

The State Information Commission, while directing disclosure, failed to adequately examine the nature of the information and whether disclosure would invade third-party privacy.

Although Section 10 permits severance, such disclosure required a proper examination of the records and identification of portions that could lawfully be disclosed without compromising privacy; the Commission’s order contained no such consideration.

The Court also treated the offer of inspection as a reasonable course in the circumstances.

The order dated 19.10.2022 of the First Appellate Authority affirming the Public Information Officer’s decision was restored.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed.